INFIDELITY UNMASKED OR THE CONFUTATION OF A BOOK PUBLISHED BY Mr. WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH UNDER THIS TITLE THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS A SAFE WAY TO SALVATION. I would thou wert cold, or hot, but because thou art lukewarm I will begin to vomit the out of my mouth. Apocal: (C: 3. V 15. 16.) Printed in GANT. By MAXIMILIAN GRAET. A o. D ni. M. DC. LII. Permissu superiorum. TO THE READER. 1. THe first thing that I am to request of thee (good Reader) is, to read this Preface, before thou address thyself to peruse the Book: And then not to read, irregularly, beginning, with the end, or at the middle, or with what shall be offered by mere 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 receive light, and strength from the former. For, the matters being connected of themselves, will grow to be either unintelligible, or obscure, or confused; if their right Consequences, and orderly sequels, be neglected, or inverted, and will certainly come by that means, to be perverted, and mistaken. 2. I cannot doubt, but that an Answer to Mr: Chillingworths' Book, hath been expected, long since. But they who are acquainted, with the many, and long, and great, and insuperable obstacles of voyages to remote countries; long, frequent, and great sicknesses; and unavoidable employments (imposed by Authority, which I ought not to resist, though some can witness, that even in that, I strained obedience, more than I should have adventured to do upon any other occasion) which have crossed my earnest, and constant desires, will not so much marvel, that this Work hath been long in doing, as that finally it is done. This one thing is evident: That not any difficulty, to answer, could have been cause of so long, delay: since whosoever can answer now, could have done it much sooner, if extrinsecall impediments had been removed. 3. As for that unfortunate man, whom I confute, Truth obliges me to declare, that, beside his most contemning, disdaining, proud, bitter, and even bloody, way of answering, by seeking to make odious, both the Religion, and persons of Catholics (as will appear by what I note in due place) I must insist upon this; that in reality his Book is no Confutation of Charity Maintained, 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 unanswered; agreably to his ingenuous acknowledgement, when time was, that Charity Maintained, could not be defeated by any forces of Protestants, and that he had a way to confute him. (a) See, the judgement of an university-man (Pag: 68, Sect: 16.) Miserable Protestancy! That could find no Advocate, except an Enemy to it and all Christianity, who took this occasion, only to vent new Heresies, no less repugnant to Protestants, than to Catholics. Did not Protestants foretell, and in f●ct prophecy, their own ruin, in preferring this unhappy man, before all England, to be Defender of their Faith? Who can wonder, to behold that Nation swimming in desolation, and blood, which endures to behold a Book published, approved, applauded, which purposely, and directly teaches, Christian Faith not to be infallibly true, and consequently, that whatsoever Christians have hitherto believed, of Scripture, of Christ, of all Christian verityes, may (for aught they can certainly know to the contrary) prove fabulous, false, or no better than dreams. If he who omitted to enact any Law, or decree any punishment for Parricides, gave the reason thereof, by ask, whether there could possibly be any such Crime: Much more Charity Maintained had no reason to fetch from Hell, this Antichristian doctrine, never imagining, that any Christian would profess to maintain so wicked a Tenet, the contrary whereof even Dr: Potter delivers, not as a thing disputable, or which needed any proof, but as a first Principle, to be supposed among Christians. 4. Presently upon the publication of Mr: Chillingworths' Book, he was by divers printed Treatises; charged with this, and other Doctrines, and expressly conjured to clear himself, under pain of being esteemed guilty, if he were silent; as by the Church Conquerant over humane wit: The total sum; The judgement of an university-man; Christianity Maintained; but never could be induced, to answer for himself, in any one particular; which silence, in a matter of this nature, could proceed only from guiltiness, as he was expressly forewarned, in the Direction to N. N. (Chap: 3.) 5. If any undertake a Confutation of my Book, he will do himself manifest wrong, unless he do me so much right, as not to pretend an Answer to me, if he abandon Mr: Chillingworth, and forsake his grounds, and so oppose me by new Principles, as Mr: Chillingworth injuriously dealt with Charity Maintained. 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 been confuted; whom, whosoever forsakes, he cannot be judged to answer my Book, but to commence, a new suit, or begin a new Work, of which I shall not esteem myself obliged to take any notice. For, as Charity Maintained 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 general Controversy: That he cite the places of those Authors, whose Authorityes he alleges, which Mr: Chillingworth frequently omitts to do: That he propose my Arguments without fraud, disguise, or disadvantage; as I have been so very careful, and even scrupulous, to relate with all sincerity Mr: Chillingworths Opinions, Reasons, and Words, that not seldom I had recourse to the Errata, noted in the end of his Book, holding it an thing, to charge him, with any over sight of the Print; though he hath not dealt so fairly with Charity Maintained, whom he impugns, even in things placed among the Errata of the Printer, and corrected. 7. I profess with all sincerity, and seriousness, that I have not wittingly omitted to answer any one Point in my Adversaries whole Book, either particularly, and explicitly, or else in Principles, which involve an Answer to all particulars when they shall be proposed. I am necessitated to repeete the same things, either to answer my Adversary 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 appear under his name only. But Truth is Truth, and will be such, in despite of Heresy, Sophistry, and wit. One favour I must acknowledge to receive from Mr: Chillingworth (though I own him no thanks for it) that his Contradictions are so frequent, as they alone are enough to confute himself: Whereof I give no examples here, in regard, they perpetually offer themselves, through his whole Book, as the Reader will perceive, and, if I be not deceived, not without wonder that a man so cried up by some other, should so patently be decried by himself, not upon any sense of humility, but by the fate (as I may say) of falsehood, which cannot be long constant to itself. (a) Anastasius Synaita (Cap: 15. odegou) Sunt qui nihil peusi habent, etiamsi inconsequenter loquantur, aut in praecipitia, se ingerant, dummodo Adversatijs rectè sentientibus creent molestiam. And this must needs appear credible, if we consider, that those Books, which were first published against him, agree in the same judgement of his Contradictions, though I am very certain, they could not borrow their censure, from one an other. 8. As for the bulk of my Book; I must acknowledge, that it might have been comprised in a lesser compass, if I could in wisdom have measured the conceypts of men, by the matter, which certainly did oftentimes not require, or deserve any Answer. But we are debtors sapientibus & insipientibus, to all sorts of persons, and many will be apt to Judge, and proclaim, all that to be unanswerable, which is not actually answered to their hand. Nevertheless, upon exact account, though Mr: Chillingworth answer one Parte only of Charity Maintained, 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 Maintained temaines till this day unanswered. 9 I meddle not with Mr: Chillingworths Answer, by way of Preface, to a little Work, entitled, A Direction to N. N.; because presently upon the publishing of his Book, that Preface of his, was in such manner confuted, by a witty, erudite, and solid Book, with this Title (The judgement of an Vniversity-man concerning Mr: William Chillingworth his late Pamphlet, in Answer to Charity Maintained) that He was much troubled thereat, but yet thought fit to digest his vexation by silence. 10. But the main Point, which I must propose here, and which I confide, every indifferent Reader, will find to be clearly evinced, even out of Mr: Chillingworths own words, is this: That whereas he gives this Title to his Book (The Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation) he might (and aught) in stead thereof either to have said, (The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation) Or, (The Religion of Roman Catholics 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 errors, and proves it, because they hold Propositions contradictory one to an other; and besides, he teaches, that millions of them err damnably; in these words, (Pag: 21.) If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in any Error, by any sin of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such Error is, as the cause of it, sinful and damnable: Yet not exclusive of all hope of salvation, but perdonable, if discovered, upon a particular explicit repentance; if not discovered, upon a general and implicit repentance for all sins known and unknown. To which words if we add what he sayeth (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 errors of Protestants are damnable in themselves: Otherwise they needed no pardon or repentance, nor could it be a sin to he betrayed into, or kept in them. And (Pag: 19 and 20.) he sayeth; If they fail to use such a measure of industry in finding truth, as humane prudence and ordinary discretion shall advise them unto, in a matter of such consequence, than their errors, begin to be malignant, and justly imputable, as offences against God, and that love of his truth which he requires in us. And he in the same place expressly affirms, that the fare greater part of Protestants are in this case. So that now, he sends to Hell, the greater part of Protestants, for the errors which they hold; and yet makes no scruple to delude them, with a verbal Mock-Title, that the Religion of Protestants is a safe way to salvation. But this is not all. He sayeth (Pag: 218. N. 49.) I would not be so mistaken, as if I thought the errors even of some Protestants unconsiderable things, and matters of no moment. For the truth is, I am very fearful, 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 remissness, and slackness, in running the race of Christian Perfection, of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God, of our frequent relapses into sin, and not seldom of security in sinning, and consequently, though not certain 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 Maintained hath Something that has some probability to persuade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions, or other to leave their Communion. From which words it necessarily follows, that all Protestants are in state of sin, and damnation, either because they themselves hold errors, or by reason, they leave not the Communion of those who hold them. And (P. 280. N. 95.) he saith to us Though Protestants have 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 their 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 said words, (that Protestants haue 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 sayeth (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 errors 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 sin of Protestants, who do not only err, but also communicate with others who err, from which Communion, we have heard him confess, that Charity Maintained hath some probability to dissuade men. In the eyes of vulgar people, this mixture of different Sects, under one name of Protestancy, may seem a kind of good thing, as bearing a show of Charity, yet indeed, to wise men, such communicants must appear, to be as little zealous, constant, and firm in their own Religion, as they affect to be esteemed charitable to others. And to every such Protestant do fully agree those excellent words of glorious S. Austin (de Civit: Dei Lib: 21. Cap: 17.) He doth err so much the more absurdly, and against the word of God more perversely, by how much he seemeth to himself to Judge more charitably. 12. Neither in this Discourse, do we rely upon his wordsonly, but on his Tenets, and Grounds, and such Truths, as both he 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 seeing Protestant's disagree about such Truths, some of them must of necessity err damnably. And so, he ought to alter the Title of his Book, into the direct contradictory, and say, The Religion of Protestants not a safe way to salvation. For, bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocunque defectu; and as we cannot affirm, that Action to be virtuous, which fails in any one moral circumstance; so Protestant's being confessedly guilty of damnable errors, he must give this Title to his Book, Protestancy not a safe way to salvation, but (unrepented) a certain way to damnation. 13. Or if he be resolved, not to change his Title; upon this Ground, That albeit Protestants err damnably, yet they may be saved, because they err not in Fundamental 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 prove my second Proposition; That, for the very same reason he must say, and might have put for the Title of his Book: The Religion of Roman Catholics a safe way to salvation: seeing he expressly and purposely teaches through his whole Book, that we err not in fundamental points, and that we may be saved by ignorance, or Repentance. That our Errors be not Fundamental, he declares in plain terms. For Changed Ma: in his preface to the Reader (N. 13.) having said: 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 do not follow, that she hath not erred fundamentally; because every such error destroys the nature and being of the Church, and so our Saviour should have 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 Fundamental, it does follow. For if it be true, that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman, than it must be, either because there was no Church at all, which we deny. Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church, which we also deny: Or because she was a part of the Whole, which we grant. And if she were a true part of the Church, than she retained those Truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errors which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. For this is precisely necessary to constiture any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholic. In our sense therefore of the word Fundamental, I hope she erred not Fundamentally: but in your sense of the word, I fear she did. That is, she held something to be Divine Revelation, which was not; something not to be, which was. Behold how he frees us from all Fundamental errors, though he fears we are guilty of errors, which he calls damnable, that is, repugnant to some Divine Revelation, whereas he professes as a thing evident that some Protestants must err fundamentally in that sense, because they hold Contradictories, of which both parts cannot be true. And so even this for consideration, he must say: The Religion of Roman Catholics a safer way to salvation, than Protestancy: seeing he can not prove that we err, by Reason of any contradiction among ourselves in matters of Faith, as it is manifest that one Protestant is contrary to an other; especially if we reflect, that not only, 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 than it is clear he confesses; I mean, that our supposed errors are not Fundamental; which is so true, that whereas in several occasions he writes, or rather declaimes against us, for denying the cup, to laymen, and officiating in an unknown tongue, as being, in his opinion, points directly contrary to evident Revelation, yet (Pag: 137. N. 21.) he hopes that the denial 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 sayeth Protestants may? Hear what he speaks to Catholics (Pag: 34. N. 5.) I can very hardly persuade myself so much as in my most secret consideration to divest you of these so needful qualifications of ignorancce and Repentance. But whensoever your errors come into my mind, my only comfort is amidest these agori●s, that the Doctrine and practise too of Repantance, is yet remaining in your Church. And this he teaches, through all his Book, together with Dr. Potter; and they universally affirm, that those Catholics may be saved, who in simplicity of hart believe what they profess; as they may be sure English Catholics do▪ who might be begged for fools, or sent to Bedlam if they did not believe that Faith, and Religion, be be true, for the truth whereof, they have endured so long, and grievous persecution. Besides it being evident, that many learned Protestants in the chiefest points controverted between them and us, agree with us, 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, unless our Religion be also such. For I hope they will not say, that the self 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 us Catholics, who● he acknowledges not to err in fundamental 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 divest Protestants of that so needful qualification by ignorance, which he denies not to us? I will faithfully relate his words, and leave others to judge what a champion Protestant's have chosen. Ch: Ma: (part. 1. Cap 5. N. 32.) objects to Protestants, that their departure from the Roman Church upon pretence of error could not be excused, seeing by leaving her they could not hope, to avoid the like unfundamentall, nor be secured from Fundamental, errors. To this, Mr. Chillingworth (Pag: 290. N. 87.) answers; that Protestants are so fare from acknowledging, that they have no hope to avoid errors of the like nature and quality with ours (which he confesses to be unfundamentall) that they proclaim to all the world, that it is most easy and prove to so, to do all those that fear God and love the Truth, and hardly possible for them to do otherwise, without supine negligence, and extreme 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 Fundamental, yea that it is hardly possible for them not to avoid such errors; seeing they disagree so irreconciliably among themselves, and divers of them fall into those (pretended) errors, which we maintain against Protestants; all which one would think, could not happen, if it were most prone and easy for Protestants to avoid such errors, and hardly possible for them to do otherwise (that is, not to avoid them) without supine negligence and extreme impiety. But that which I say now, is; That seeing de facto he confesses Protestants to hold errors (yea, millions, even the greater part of them, to be in error by their own fault, as we have seen above) it follows, that in his judgement, they are actually guilty of ●upine negligence, and extreme 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 errors of Protestants to be unpardonable? Sure I am, he sayeth (Pag: 275. N. 58.) God is infinitely just, tod therefore as it ●● to be feared will not pardon them, who might easily have come to the knowledge of the Truth, and either through prid●, or obstinacy, or negligence would not. Now, we have heard him avouch, that it is easy for Protestants to come to the knowledge of the Truth; and hardly possible for them to do otherwise without supine negligence and extreme impiety, and therefore it is to be feared, God will not pardon them, even in the opinion of Mr. I'll: their selected Advocate, though for ends of his own, he thought fit, to publish his Book under this Title; the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation. 18. I said in the third place; That unless he confess the Religion of Roman Catholics to be a safe way to salvation, he must not only affirm, 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 clear, out of what hath been said already. For seeing he holds it not necessary, that any Church be free from errors unfundamentall, and that the whole Church, before Luther was infected with such errors, and that at this day Protestant's err damnably, I wonder of what Christian 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 err fundamentally? And therefore if any Christian Church be a safe way, we are safe even in the Principles of I'll: 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, give any such hope to Protestants without Repentance, and retractation of their errors. (a) Maximus hom. 1. in Festo Palchae; validis absque dubio vititur privilegijs, qui causam de adversarijs assent instrumentis. Speciosa victoria est, contrariam partem chartulis suis, velue proprijs, laqueis irretire, & testimoniorum suorum vocibus confurare, & aemulum telis suis evincere ut pugnatoris tur argumenta tuis probentur utilitatibus militare. 19 I will say no more by way of Preface, but only signify, in a word, for the Readers necessary knowledge, or remembrace; that there having been printed a little, elegant, and pithy Treatise, with this Title: Charity Mistaken, with the want whereof, Catholics are unjustly charged, for affirming, that Protestancy unrepented destroys salvation: And this Treatise having been answered by Dr: Potter; the Doctor's Answer was confuted, by a Reply, entitled: Mercy, and Truth, Or, Charity Maintained by Catholics. To this Reply Mr: Chillingworth published an Answer, with this Title; the Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation; against which divers little Treatises were presently put forth, as I said above; and now I have endeavoured to answer it at large. By Cham There I shall hereafter understand, Charity Mistaken, and by Ch: Ma: Charity Maintained. I cite the Second Edition of Dr: Potter's Book, and the Oxford Edition of Mr: Chillingworths (which only I have, 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 Book, and his Book lives in the vain esteem of men, who yet pretend to be Christians. A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS. An Introduction. Touching the necessity of Divine Grace for all works 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 contained in Scripture alone. Pag: 122. Chap: 3. A Confutation of Mr: Chillingworths errors 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 we prove the infallibility of the Church. Pag: 426. Chap: 6. About Fundamental and not Fundamental Points of Faith. Pag: 440. Chap: 7. Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schism. Pag: 458. Chap: 8. Mr: Chillingworrths errors concerning Repentance, are examined, and confuted. Pag: 596. Chap: 9 The answer to the Preface of Charity Maintained 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 answer to his Second Chapter concerning the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding, and which must determine Controversyes in Faith and Religion. Pag: 648. Chap: 12. The answer to his third Chapter, about Fundamental and not Fundamental Points. Pag: 707. Chap: 13. That the Creed contains not all Points necessary to be believed: in answer to his fourth Chapter. Pag: 788. Chap: 14. The answer to his fifth Chapter about Schism. 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 own to themselves, to reunite themselves to the Roman Church. Pag: 932. Touching the necessity of divine Grace for all works of Christian Piety. I. THe necessity I find of premisinge this Introduction, gives me just cause to begin with those sad passages of the Prophet jeremy (c. 9.1.) Who will give water to my head, and to mine eyes a fountain of tears? and v. 18. Let our eyes shed tears, and our eye lids run down with waters. And c. 13. v. 17. My soul shall weep because of the pride. a S. Aug. l. 2. de peccatorum meritis & remiss. cap. 18. sayeth: Ipsa ratio quemlibet nostrum quaetentem vehementer angustat, ne ●ic defendamus gratiam, ut liberum arbitrium auferre videamur: rurlus, ne liberum sic asseramus arbittium, ut SUPERBA IMPIETATE, ingrati Dei gratiae indicemur. O England, what greater pride then to make humane reason the measure of Christian faith; and to believe Faith to be only a probable assent, because Reason cannot with evidency comprehend how it should be infallibly true! O souls, deny not the satisfaction of Christ our Lord for our sins, and his Merit of supernatural Grace, to enable our nature towards works of Piety! Be not elevated (Jerem: 13.16.17.) but Give you glory to our Lord your God before it wax dark, and before your feet stumble at the dark mountains: Otherwise, you shall look for light, and he will turn it into the shadow of death and into darkness. But if you will not hear this, in secret my soul shall weep because of the pride. b S. Anselmus ad illud 1. Cor. 4. Quid habes quod non accepisti? saith: Fecit Deus ut esses, & tu fecisti ut bonus esses: absit. Si enim Deus dedit ut esses, & alius tibi dare potuit ut bonus esses, melior est ille qui dedit ut bònus esses, quam ille qui dedit ut esses: Sed nullus Deo melior: igítur à Deo accepisti & esse, & bonum esse. Thus saith our Lord: let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, but he that glorieth, let him glory in this, because I am the Lord that do mercy. For it is not (Rom. 9.16.) of the willer, nor of the runner, but of God that showeth Mercy, by freely offering Pardon, Grace, and Glory. Let us not, o let us not make vain the Life, Sufferings, Death, Satisfaction and Merit of God incarnate, by setting up an idol of reason: but let us say with the Apostole (Galat. 2.21.). I cast not away the Grace of God. For if justice by the Law (of Mòyses; if Faith by reason) than Christ died in vain II. But here some will not fail to ask the reason, why I should treat this (seeming fare fetched) matter, in this occasion. The Answer to this demand cannot be so fitly and fully delivered by me in this place, as it will of itself appear in several occasions through this whole work. For the present, I say, that the necessity of supernatural grace being once established; the most substantial parts of M. Chillingworths' book, will remain confuted. For, if Divine faith be the Gift of God, infused into our souls, and that we cannot exercise any one Act thereof, without the particular grace and motion of the Holy Ghost, it follows immediately and clearly (against his fundamental and capital heresy) that Christian Faith must be infallible, and exempt from all possibility of error, or falsehood. It being an evident, and certain truth, that the supreme and Prime. verity cannot by his special supernatural motion inspire a falsehood S. john's advice (1. joan: 4.1.) is, Believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits if they be of God. But if we find our spirit to be of God, and yet maintain, that it may be stained with error, what further trial can we make? must we raise up the spirit of man, and rely on the strength of reason, to try, and so perhaps to check, and reject the spirit of God, though known, and acknowledged, to be his spirit? We read in holy Scripture (Deuter: c. 18.21.22.) If in secret cogitation thou answer: How shall I understand the word, that our Lord spoke not? This sign thou shalt have: That which the same Prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord and cometh not to pass, that our Lord hath not spoken, but by the arrogancy of his mind the Prophet hath forged it. Which yet were no good or infallible sign, if the spirit of God, who spoke by the Prophets, could inspire a falsehood. III. This truth is granted even by sectaryes themselves, 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.) sayeth that Potter ascribes to the Apostles the Spirits guidance, and consequently infallibility, in a more high and absolute manner than any since them. Where we see he proportionates infallibility to the guidance of the Spirit. iv Besides, if the Theological virtues of Hope, and Charity be- the Gifts of God, and their Acts require supernatural assistance, Faith also, by which they are directed, must be supernatural and require Gods particular Grace, which excludes all falsehood. If Faith, Hope, and Charity be Gifts infused by God, not acquired by Acts proceeding from our natural forces, and for that reason we can not be assured of their presence by sensible experience, as we may be of acquired natural Habits; If they be Powers to enable, not mere Habits, to facilitate us in order to Actions of Piety; we must infer, that they are not to be increased or diminishd, lost, conserved, or acquired, or measured, according to the rate of natural 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 sin; and Faith with heresy, and the like Tenets, instantly fall to the ground, their whole foundation being an imaginary parity. or rather identity, of infused and natural Habits, or Gifts; as will appear when such particular points shall offer themselves to be examined. V Hear I cannot forbear to reflect, in what manner they who have once withdrawn their belief and obedience from God's Church, and an jnfallible living judge in matters belonging to Faith, do run into extremes. Some of them, to maintain the necessity of Grace, deny freewill: others in direct opposition to these, give all to freewill, and deny the necessity of Grace. Some reject inherent Justice though infused by God; yea they teach that the guilt of sin still remaining, doth stain all our actions, which therefore are in themselves deadly sins. Some grant inherent Justice or sanctity, not infused by God, but acquired by the natural forces of man's Freewill. But Catholics hold the mean; and acknowledge true inherent Justice and sanctity, infused by the Holy Ghost, not acquired by any acts of ours: They maintain Actions of piety proceeding from our will, assisted by grace, or from grace with the cooperation of our will; and so they are moral, and free, as proceeding from our will; and yet supernatural, 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 benevolos: ex ipso nobis est velle, ex ipsà honum velle. From our Freedom proceeds that we will; from Grace, that we will what is good. VI To allege for the necessity of grace, Fathers, and Counsels, were as easy, as it is both needless, (none being ignorant of what the Fathers have written, and Counsels defined against Pelagius and his associates) and fruitless; in regard that such men despise all Authority, except that of Scripture, which alone they pretend to follow. Only I thought fit to set down, what the sacred general Council of Trent, hath defined in this matter of Grace; not to prove the truth of our Assertions, since our Adversaries reject it, but to lay open the falsehood of the frequent calumnies, which Protestants are wont to lay upon us, as if we hoped to be saved by our own, and not by the merits of Christ our Lord, who purchased for us divine grace, without which we are not able to think, speak, or perform, any least action of christian Piety; and so all our merits being by us believed 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 will; which good will being the gift of God, all glory is due to him alone. VII. Be pleased then, indifferent Reader, to hear what the Council defines, and then judge whether our doctrine be not most orthodox, and holy, and the calumnies of our Adversaries most untrue, and . VIII. The Council Sess: 6. Can: 1. saith. If any shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works, which can be wrought either by the force of humane nature, or by the doctrine of the law without God's 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 believe, hope, love, or repent as he ought that the grace of justification be given him: be he accursed. And in the same place, Cap. 5. The sacred council declares, that the beginning of justification in men who are come the the use of reason, is to be taken from the prevenient grace of God by Christ jesus, that is, from his calling, by which they are called without any merits of their own, that they who by sin were averted from God, by his exciting and helping grace may be disposed to convert themselves to their justification, by freely assenting and cooperating with the same grace, so that God touching the hart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither man himself doth nothing at all, receiving that inspiration, since it is in his power to reject it; neither yet can he with his own freewill move himself to justice in the sight of God without his Grace. And therefore when the Holy Scripture saith: Convert to me, and I will convert to you: we are put in mind of our freewill. When we answer: Convert us o Lord tothee, and we shall be converted, we acknowledge ourselves to be prevented by Gods ' grace. And Chap. 6. They are disposed to justice itself, while by being excited and helped by Divine grace, conceavinge faith by hearing, they are freely moved to God, believing those things to be true which are revealed and promised by God; and particularly this, that God iustifyes a sinner by his grace, by the redemption which is in Christ jesus. Chap 7. Although none can be just except he to whom the merits of our Lord jesus 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 hearts of those who are justified. Chap. 16. Neither is our justice maintained as of ourselves, neither is the justice of God either unknown, or rejected: for that which is said to be our justice, because we are justified by it inherent in us, the self same is the justice of God, because by him it is infused into us by the merits of Christ. Neither is it to be omitted, that although in Holy Scripture so great reckoning be made of good works, that Christ hath promised that he shall not be deprived of his reward who shall give to one of his little ones a cup of cold water. And the Apostle witnesseth, that our tribulation which presently is momentary and light, worketh above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us: yet far be it from a christian man to confide or glory in himself and not in our Lord, whose goodness towards men is so great, that he will have those to be their merits, which are his own gifts. Chap. 8. We are justified gratis, because nothing which goes before justification, whether it be faith or works, doth merit the grace of justification: for if it be grace, than not of works: otherwise, as the Apostle saith, Grace is not Grace. Chap. 11. Almighty God commands no● things impossible, but by commanding admonisheth, both to do what thou canst, and to ask, what thou canst not, and helps thee, that thou mayst be able to do it. Whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet, and burden light. For they who are the sons of God, love Christ; and they who love him, as he witnesseth, do keep his words: which surely they may do with the help of God. Chap. 13. Men ought to fear, knowing that they are regenerated to the hope of glory, and not yet to glory itself, from the combat which remains with the flesh, world, and devil: wherein they cannot be victorious, unless with the grace of God they obey the Apostle, saying, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. Chap. 16. Christ Jesus daily gives virtue to the justified, as the head to the members, and the vine to the vine-branches: which virtue doth always go before, accompany, and follow their good works, and without which they could not in any wise be grateful to God, and meritorious. Lastly, the council defines: If any shall say, that a man justified, either can without the especial help of God persever in the justice he hath received, or that with it he cannot: be he accursed. IX. More might be alleged out of the Council, but this may suffice to demonstrate the Doctrine of Catholics concerning the necessity of God's Grace, to believe; Hope; Love God; Keep his commandments; Merit; Repent; Overcome temptations; and persever to the end. All which is not inconsistent with, freewill which is assisted, and elevated, not hindered or impeached by grace; as it is wont to be said. Grace doth not destroy, but perfect nature. Our adversaries grant that Adam in the state of innocency was endued with freewill, and yet grace was then necessary for the exercise of every supernatural Act, with which humane nature can have no sufficient proportion, (otherwise supernatural were not supernatural, but natural or due to nature) and therefore it is clear that the necessity and concurrence of God's grace agrees very well with man's freewill. Thus all difficultyes are cleared, and Holy Scripture declared not to imply any contradiction, while it teaches both the freedom of our will, and the necessity of Grace. X. By this occasion I cannot choose but beg of all who are desirous to know what Catholics teach, not to hear and trust the clamours, and calumnies 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 own souls, and love to truth, read the Council of Trent, to which all Catholics in matters of Faith subscribe; and I dare confidently promise, they will observe such gravity in the stile, such piety in the matter, such grounds from Scripture, such consonancy with Antiquity, such clearness and reasonableness in the Definitions, that they shall never repent themselves of a few hours spent in that search, but will find to be true what I have always thought, and often spoken, that to set down our Doctrines as they are believed by us, (and not as our Adversaries falsify, or disguise them) or rightly to state the Question, would be a sufficient defence of our Assertions, and confutation of all the contraty Objections. XI But I return to the matter itself; intending to prove out of express words of holy Scripture, the necessity of grace, First, for all works of piety in general. 2. For Faith. 3. For Hope, 4. For Charity. 5. For keeping the commandments; and overcoming temptations. 6. For repentance. 7. For perseverance. These heads for better method we will distinguish into several Sections SECTION I. The necessity of Grace for all actions of Christian Piety, in general. XII. THe Necessity of Grace appears sufficiently by the divers ways and metaphors under which holy Scripture labours (if so I may say) to declare it unto us, as some Divines have well observed: as by a metaphor taken from him who knocks at the door, (Apoc. 3.) Behold I stand at the door and knock: Of one who awakes us from sleep, (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, (job 29.) when his lamp shined over my head, and I walked by his light in darkness: of Preventinge and having mercy on us, (Psalm. 58.) His mercy shall prevent me. Other expressions of the same Grace will appear in the places, which shall be alleged, out of Holy Scripture. In the council of Trent (as we have seen above) Grace is declared, under divers names; as of Vocation, Illumination, Inspiration, Excitation, touching, and Motion. XIII. Let us now allege particular Texts of Holy Scripture Ps. 58. His mercy shall prevent me: Ezech. c. 36.2.26 I will give you a new hart, and put a new spirit in the midst of you; and, I will take away the stony hart out of your Flesh, and will give you a fleshy hart; and I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will make that you walk in my precepts, and keep my judgements and do them. Chap. 18.31. Make to yourselves a new hart and a new spirit. (Behold in these Texts the possibility of keeping the Commandments; the Necessity of Grace; and the consistency of Grace with freewill; which are three principal doctrines believed by Catholicques) Isaiae 54.13. All thy children taught of out Lord. Matt. 20. v. 16, Many be called, but few elect. joan. 15. v. 5. Without me, you can do nothing. Rom. 8. v. 26. The spirit helpeth our infirmity, For what we should pray, as we ought, we know not: but the spirit himself requesteth for us with groan unspeakable. Rom. 3. v. 24. Justified 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 showeth mercy. Rom: 11. v. 6. If by Grace, not of works, otherwise Grace now is not Grace. And v. 35. Who hath first given to him, and retribution shall be made him? 1. Cor. 4. v. 7. Who discerneth thee, or what hast thou that thou hast not received. 1. Cor. 15. v. 10. By the Grace of God jam that I am; and his Grace in me hath not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they; yet not I, but the Grace of God with me. v. 57 Thanks be to God that hath given to us the victory by our Lord jesus Christ. 2. Cor. 3. v. 5. Not that we be sufficient to think any thing of ourselves as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Epehs. 1. v. 6.7. Unto the praise of the glory of his Grace wherein he hath gratifyed us in his beloved son, in whom we have redemption by his blood, (the remission of sins) according to the riches of his Grace. Philip. v. 6. He which hath begun in you a good work, will perfect it unto the day of Christ jesus. Philip: 2. v. 13. For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. Apoc. 3. v. 20. Behold I stand at the door and knock; if any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the gate, I will enter in to him, and will sup with him and he with me. Behold again the force of Grace in knocking at the door, and the cooperation of freewill in hearing the voice of God, and opening to him the gate. XIV. I need add no more Texts of Holy Scripture, for this point of the Necessity of Grace, to all works of Piety in general, since the same will also be proved by demonstrating the Necessity thereof, for the particulars of Believing, Hoping, etc. As also what we have proved in general, infers the Necessity for the same particulars, of Faith, Hope, &c: Yea while we prove the Necessity of Grace for any particular, for example, Faith, the same remains proved for all other points belonging to Piety, by reason of the same ground, and parity for all. And indeed since eternal Bliss in Heaven, to which men are ordained, is supernatural●, it is clear of itself that it cannot be attained by the forces of nature, but by the particular Grace and assistance of God's Holy Spirit. This Necessity of Grace is so fundamental a point, so prime a principle in Christian Divinity, so intrinsecall and essential to Christianity, so fully, effectually, and frequently declared and urged in Holy Scripture, that the greatest enemies of God's grace, Pelagius, and his fellows, were forced to acknowledge it in words, though dissemblingly. XV. The same necessity of Grace, is taught by the Protestant Church of England (once so styled) in the 10. Article of the 39 in these words: The condition of man after the fall of Ad●m is such, that he canno● turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to Faith and calling upon God, wherefore we have no power to d●e good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the Grace of Ged by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will. If any say, these Articles are now of small account, and little less than disarticled: I answer; they have this specious title: Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562. For avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion. If now they carry so small authority, their Title should have been, (directly contrary to what it is) Articles agreed upon for the establishing diversityes of opinions, and for the avoiding of consent touching true Religion. As these Atticles are now despised, so what soever shall ever be proposed, or set down by any other will never be to any purpose, for the establishing of consent in matters of Faith, and Religion, till England return to the root from which it hath divided itself, and seriously reflect into what precipices it is fallen, by forsaking Rome, and rejecting an jnfallible living judge of controversyes: for who can give any man of judgement a satisfactory reason, why so many pretended Bishops were not of as good credit as others, or why others are not as much to be believed, as those Bishops. I beseech every one to whom the salvation of his soul is dear, to ponder in good earnest this consideration; and then to obey S. ●hons saying, (Apoc. 2.5:) Be mindful from whence thou art fallen, and do penance. SECTION II. The Necessity of Grace to Believe. XVI. FAith being, as the Apostle saith (Hebr. c. 11.1.) the substance of things to be hoped for, and foundation of our spiritual life; if it proceed from our natural forces, or reason; the whole edifice of our salvation must be ascribed to ourselves; which were a most proud and luciferian conceit; and yet I read in M. Chillingworth (Pag. 375. n. 55.) these words: Neither do we follow any private men, but only the Scripture the word of God, as our rule, and REASON which is also the gist of God given to direct us in all our actions, in the use of this rule. And through his whole book speaking of that Faith which 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 rational discourse evidently deduced from such probable Premises; Pa. 36. n. 9 He speaks of jnfusion as of a particular favour above the ordinary measure of Faith. And, (n. 8.) God desires only that we believe the conclusion as much as the Premises deserve. And, (Pag. 212. n. 154.) Neither God doth, nor man may require of us, as our duty, to give a greater assent to the Conclusion than the Premises deserve; to build an infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible, and not infallible. And, Pa. 381. n. 74. He speaking of our Catholic Faith, which he denies not, to be, for substantial fundamental points, true faith, (for he holds that true faith of some points, may stand with damnable errors in other) saith: 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 supernatural? which demand were very impertinent, if he did believe that divine supernatural Grace were necessary, for every act of true Christian faith. For, if it be not supernatural in essence, how can the special motion, and grace of God be necessarily required to it in all occasions, though no particular temptatation, or difficulty offer itself? And he speaks very inconsequently in ask how we know that our faith is, not in regard of the object only and cause of it, but in nature and essence of it, supernatural, since it is clear, that if the cause be necessarily, and universally, supernatural, the effect also must be such; and therefore he is convinced to believe indeed that neither the cause, nor essence of faith is supernatural. I grant that (Pa. 409. lin. 3. ante finem) he would persuade us that he hath no cause to differ from Dr. Potter concerning the supernaturality of Faith, which (saith he) I know and believe, as well as you, to be the gift of God, and that flesh and blood revealed it not unto us, but our Father which is in Heaven. But even in this we can gather only that he admits the necessity of some grace, consisting in external Revelation, or Proposition of the objects or mysteries of Christian, faith, (which Pelagius did admit) but not the necessity of internal Grace, or motion of the Holy Ghost, for enabling our understanding to believe supernatural Objects, with an infallible divine Faith: yea it is evident that he requires no such internal grace, seeing he expressly requires no stronger assent by faith then evidently follows from probable Arguments of credibility, that is, only a probable belief or persuasion; whereas if beside the proposition of the object, he did require a supernatural motion of grace, elevating our vnderstanding above its natural forces, and measure of humane discourse it were very inconsequent to limit the assent of faith to the probability of jnducements, or Arguments of Credibility: And yet he restrains our assent to such probability, expressly because in rational and natural discourse, the conclusion cannot exceed the premises, and therefore must be only probable, when the Premises are such. XVII. For which cause when he speaks of particular Grace given to some above the ordinary course, he confesses, that it gives them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence; as he expressly delivers pag. 37. n. 9 Which certainty in good consequence he could not deny to every Act of divine faith, if he did believe that every such Act, doth of itself; necessarily require particular internal Grace of God, above the forces of nature, and beside the external proposition of the objects, or Mysteries of Christian belief. Neither can it be denied but that an Object of itself supernatural, may be believed by the natural forces of our Understanding, with some probable natural assent, for Arguments evidently proposed; as Miracles, comparing of Histories, and the lïke reasons, for which men believe other matters of tradition: since therefore he teacheth, that Christian Faith is only a probable assent, he must affirm, that it doth not necessarily require the peculiar supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost. But why do I use any proof, since we have his own express words in the same Pag. 37. n, 9 Some experience makes me fear that considering and discoursing men, being possessed with this false principle, that it is in vain to believe the Gospel of Christ with such a kind or degree of assent, as they yield to other matters of tradition: And finding that their faith of it, is to them undiscernible from the belief they give to the truth of other stories; are in danger not to believe at all, or else to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityes, as fearing they have not that, without which it is impossible to please God, and obtain eternal happiness. Do not these words declare, that faith sufficient to please God, and obtain eternal happiness, is of the same kind and degree of assent as men yield to other matters of Tradïtion, and truth of other stories, for the belief of which no man did ever say that a special motion, or grace of the Holy Ghost, was always necessary? And it is to be observed, that he speaks of considering and discoursing men, as still reducing Faith to Reason, whereas contralily experience teacheth, that oftentimes simple persons, believe with humility and devotion when the wisest mè of the world turn fools in matters belonging to God; or if they embrace the Faith of Christ, they do it not always, with such strength of belief, as many unlearned people do: which shows that Faith relies on some more high, and divine foundation, than the only forces of natural Reason. XVIII, To this we may add, what he teacheth (Pag. 62. n. 24.) That our assurance that the Scripture hath been preserved from any material alteration, and that any other book is incorrupted, is of the same kind and condition, both moral assurances. And, Pag. 141. No 27. For the incorruption of Scripture, I know no other rational assurance we can have of it, than such as we have of the incorruption of otherr ancient books: such I mean, for the kind, though it be far greater for the degree of it. And if the spirit of God give any man any oath assurance here of, this is not rational and discursive, but supernatural and infused. Mark how still he requires as necessary, only a rational discourse for the incorruption and preservation of Scripture from any material alteration, (and yet Protestants acknowledging Scripture to be the only rule of Faith and belief of all Christian mysteries, can be no more certain of such mysteries, than they are assured of Scripture itself) and still speaks of supernatural infusea assurance, as of an extraordinary thing And yet further (Pag. 116, Nᵒ 159.) he saith: We have, I believe, as great reason to believe, there was such a man as Henry the eight, King of England, as that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. I suppose he will not say, that a special grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to believe, that there was such a man as Henry the eight; Therefore he will, and must, say the same of the Article of our Faith, that jesus Christ suffered under 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 saith (Pag. 327. Nᵒ 5.) in these words: Men may talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty, but did they generally believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present, and eternal felicity, but as much as Caesar's Commentaries, or the History of Sallust, I believe the lives of most men, both Papists and Protestants, would be better than they are. By which words it is clear, that either most Papists and Protestants want true Faith, necessary to salvation, or that Faith sufficient to salvation need be no greater, concerning the mysteries of Christian Faith, than the belief we yield to profane histores; and certainly this requires no special Grace, or motion of the Holy Ghost. To conclude, since he professes, that Christian Faith is of the same kind with rational discourse, and belief of other matters of Tradition, and humane Histories, it clearly follows, that it is in its essence natural, and in kind different from supernatural: and therefore cannot universally require the particular motion, and assistance of divine Grace. XIX. But les us confute this proud Heresy, by Holy Scripture. S. Ihon. C. 6. V 29. saith. This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. V 44. No man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me, draw him: and afterward he expourds what it is to come unto him, namely, to believe. V 64.65. There be certain of you that believe not. Therefore did I say, that no man can come unto me unless it be given him of my Father. V 45. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned cometh to me. Mat. 11.25.26. Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed 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 blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. Which Text must be understood of internal Grace, and not only of the external Revelation, or Proposition of the Object, which was made to the wise and prudent, as well as to little ones, and to many other beside S. Peter, who yet were not therefore blessed as S. Peter was declared to be. Isai. 54.12. All thy children taught of our Lord. Act. 13.48. There believed as many as were preordinated to life everlasting. And Act. 16.14.15. A certain woman called Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of the Thyatirians, one that worshipped God, did hear: whose hart our Lord opened to atted to those thinghs which were said of Paul. And when she was babtized etc. Rom. 5.2. By whom (Christ) also we have access through faith into the grace wherein we stand, and glory, in the hope of the glory of the sons of God. If by faith we have access to the hope of glory, which is supernatural, Faith itself must also be supernatural, and require the special 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 himself requesteth for us with groan unspeakable. Rom. 12.3. To every one as God hath divided the measure of faith. 1. Cor. 12.3. No man can say our Lord jesus, but in the Holy Ghost. V 9 To anoter faith in the same spirit. 2. Cor. 3. Not that we be sufficient to think any thing of ourselves as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God. 2. Cor. 4.6. Because God that hath commanded light to shine of darkness, he hath shined in our hearts to the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ jesus. Galat. 5.22.23. The fruit of the spirit is Faith. Ephes. 1.16.17.18. I cease not to give thanks for you, making a memory of you in my prayers. That God of our Lord jesus Christ, the Father of glory, give you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, in the knowledge 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 saved 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 jesus Christ. Philipp. 1.29. To you it is given for Christ, not only that you believe in him, but also that you suffer for him. Colos: 1.2. Giving thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy unto the part of the lot of the Saints in the light. 2. Pet. 1.21. The holy men of God spoke inspired with the Holy Ghost. XX, Moore Texts of Scripture might be alleged, but it is needles, since euen all Sectaryes, except Pelagius, and such as follow him, believe Grace to be necessary for faith; and in particular, D. Potter, (to whom Chilling: is in this main point directly opposite) as is evident by these his express words (Pag. 135.) Faith is said to be divine and supernatural, in regard of the author or efficient cause of the act and habit of divine faith, which is the special grace of God preparing, enabling, and assisting the soul to believe. For faith is the gist of God alone (1. Cor. 12.34.) 2. In regard of the object or things believed, which are above (Philipp. 1.29.) the reach and comprehension of mere nature and reason, Philip. 1.29. Thus D. Potter; and adds; that of these two respects there is no controversy; he means, between Catholics, and Protestants. For by the event it is clear, that there is a controversy between him, and the Socinians, and in particular with Chilling worth, his champion. But necessity hath no law. Charity Maintained could not with any show be answered in the grounds of Protestants, who therefore chose rather to destroy their own grounds, and the doctrine of all good Christians, then to confess the truth of our Catholic faith, though convicted by evident reasons. Besides, Pag. 140. D. Potter saith: Humane authority, consent, and proof may produce an humane or acquired faith, but the assent of divine faith is absolutely divine: in which words he distinguisheth acquired faith, from divine; and consequently holds, that this is not acquired, but infused. Pag. 141. That Scripture is of divine authority the believer sees by many internal arguments found in the letter itself though found by the help and direction of the Church without, and of grace within. Mark how besides the external proposition of the object by the Church, he requires internal grace. Pag. 142. There is in the Scripture itself, light sufficient, which the eye of reason cleared by grace, and assisted by the many motives which the Church useth for enforcing of her instructions, may discover to be divine, descended from the father and fountain of light. Pag. 143. he teaches, that by the ministry of the church in preaching and expounding, the Holy Ghost begets a divine faith in us. And in the same place he termeth the act of faith supernatural, as also we have heard him term it so pag. 135. and it is a plain contradiction, that it should be supernatural, or above nature, and yet be produced by the forces of nature, which were to make it above, and not above nature, XXI. By the way it is to be noted, that D. Potter delivers a very untrue doctrine in saying (in this pag. 135.) that the efficient cause of the act and habit of divine faith is the special grace of God. For, the special actual grace of God is not the efficient cause of the habit of our faith, which is infused by God alone, as our natural acts of understanding, or willing, do not produce the Powers of our understanding, or will; and supernatural Habits of Faith, Hope etc. are given us not to facilitate, but to enable us to exercise Acts of Faith, Hope, &c: For which cause, they are compared to supernatural Acts, as the natural faculties or Powers of our soul are compared to their natural Acts, which they produce, and are not produced by them. I omit his unproper speech, that the special grace of God is the author of an act of faith. SECTION III. The necessity of Grace to Hope as we ought for salvation. XXII. IF Grace be necessary for every work of Christian Piety, and in particular for faith, as we have proved, it will be needles to stand long upon proving that it is necessary for hoping, which is a work of Piety proceeding from a Theological Virtue, to which Faith is referrd, and of which, mortal men, considering the sublimity of eternal Happiness and guiltiness of their own means, frailty, and sins, stand in need, for raising up their souls towards so supernatural an Object, and preserving them from dejection, pusilanimity, and despair; yet we will not omit to allege some particular Texts of Scripture, in proof of this Truth. Rom 5.2. By whom (Christ) we have access through Faith into this Grace wherein we stand, and glory, in the hope of the glory of the sons of God. Where it is clear, that the Apostle placeth hope amongst the gifts of the children of God, which we receive by Christ, Chap. 15. V 4.5. That by the patience and consolation of the Scriptures we may have hope, and the God of patience give you to be of one mind. Which words declare, that God is the author of those gifts. 1. Cor. 13.13. And now there remain Faith, Hope, Charity. Where it appears, that these three Virtues are specially numbered together, as belonging to the same rank and order, Psalm. 18.49. Be mindful of thy word to thy servant, wherein thou hast given me hope. Thessa● 5.8. But we that are of the day, are sober; having on, the breast plate of faith, and charity, and a helmet, the hope of salvation. Where we see the apostle joins Hope with Faith, and Charity: and V 9.10. declares that it is given for Christ, and is ordained, and conduces to a supernatural end, saying; for God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but unto the purchasing of salvation by our Lord jesus Christ who died for us. 1. Pet. 3.4.5. Blessed be God, and the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy hath regenerated us, unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of jesus Christ from the dead; unto an inheritance incorruptible, and incontaminate, and that cannot fade, conserved in the heavens in you, who in the virtue of God are kept by faith unto salvation. SECTION iv Grace necessary for Charity. XXIII. IF Grace be necessary for faith and hope, much more is it necessary for Charity, which by the Apostle is preferred before those other two virtues. 1. Cor. 13.13, Now there remain Faith, Hope, Charity, these three, but the greater of these is Charity. Besides, Charity being the fulfilling of the law, if we cannot keep the commandments without grace, (as we will prove in the next Section) it follows that without grace we cannot Love as we ought for attaining salvation. But yet let us allege some places of Scripture, wherein this truth is set down. 1. joan: 4.7. Charity is of God, and every one that loveth, is borne of God, and knoweth God joan. 14.23.24. If any love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make abode with him. He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. Who dare ascribe to a love acquired by humane forces, these privileges of keeping God's word, in so supernatural a way, as that the B. Trinity will come, and remain with him? Rom. 5.5: The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the holy Ghost which is given us. Rom. 13.8. He that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the la. V 10. Love therefore is the fullness of the la. Galat. 5.22. The fruit of the spirit is charity. Ephes. 6.23.24. Peace to the brethren, and charity with faith from God the father, and our Lord jesus Christ. Grace with all that love our Lord jesus Christ in incorruption. XXIV. Even Chilling, (Pag. 20.) saith: what can hinder, but that the consideration of Gods most infinite Goodness to them (Protestants) and their own almost infinite wickedness against him, God's spirit cooperating with them, may raise them to a true and sincere, and a cordial love of God? In which words he may seem to require the particular grace of the holy Ghost, for exercising an Act of love or charity. I say, he may seem; because it is no news for him to dissemble, or disguise his true meaning, under some show of words used by good Christians, though it cost him a contradiction with himself, and his own Grounds. Howsoever it be, at least his manner of speech shows how christians must not deny this truth. SECTION V The Necessity of Grace for keeping the Commandments, and overcoming temptations. XXV. THis point gives me again just occasion to observe, how they who deny a living jnfallible judge of controversies, cannot avoid running into pernicious extremes. Some hold, that Christians are not bound in conscience to keep the Commandments; a Vide Bellarm: de justificatione l. 4. Cap. 1. in somuch as Luther is not afraid, nor ashamed to say: b In Commentario ad Cap: 2 ad Galatas. When it is taught, that indeed faith in Christ justifies, but yet so as we ought to keep the commandments, because it is written, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments there Christ is instantly denied▪ and faith abolished. And elsewhere c In Sermone de novo Testamento, si●e de M●ssa. Let us take heed of sins, but much more of laws, and good works; Let us attend only to the promise of God and faith. I wonder how a man can take heed of sin, and jointly take heed of good works. Shall he be still doing, and yet do neither good, nor bad? Some teach, that it is impossible to keep the commandments, even with the assistance of divine grace. Others, that they may be kept by the force of nature, and that the assistance of God's grace is not necessary, except only to keep them with greater ease or facility. XXVI. The true Catholic doctrine is, that we may keep the commandments, and overcome temptations by the grace of God, not by our own natural forces: which is manifestly declared in Holy Scripture. EZechiel 36.26. I will give you a new hart, and put a new spirit in midst of you: and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh, and will give you a fleshy hart. And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will make that you walk in my precepts, and keep my judgements, and do them. 1. joan. 5.3. This is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments. joan. 14.23.24. If any love me, he will keep my word, and my father will love him, and we will come to him and will make abode with him. He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. Behold, loving or not loving; keeping or not keeping the commandments, go together: But we have proved, that Grace is necessary to love God; it is therefore necessary to keep his commandments. Rom. 8.3. For, that which was impossible to the law, in that it was weakened by the flesh: God sending his son in the flesh of sin, even of sin damns sin in the flesh. That the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us. 1. Cor. 7.7. The Apostle teaches, that not only the continency of virgins, and widows, but married people also, is the gift of God, saying: Every one hath a proper gift of God, one so, and another so. Sap. 8.21. And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, unless God gave 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 just with God; but the doers of the Law shall be justified. And yet the same Apostle saith Galat: 2, 21. If justice by the Law, than Christ died in vain. And we may say in the same manner, If justice by nature, and not by Grace, Christ died in vain. S. james 3.8. The tongue no man can tame. Rom. 5.20.21. The Law entered in that sin might abound, and where sin abounded, grace did more abound; that as sinne reigned to death: so also grace may reign by justice to life everlasting through jesus 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 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 mind, and captiving me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God by jesus Christ our Lord. 1. Cor. 15.56 57 The power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God that hath given us victory by our Lord jesus Christ. 1. Cor. 10.13. God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to sustain. Psalm. 17.30. In thee I shallbe delivered from temptation. Psa. 26.9. Be thou my helper, forsake me not. Psalm. 29.7.8. I said in my abundance, I will not be moved for ever. Thou hast turned away thy face from me, and I became troubled. Psalms, 117.13. Being thrust I was overturned to fall, and our Lord receyved me. 1. Pet. 5. V 8.9. Be sober and watch: because your adversary the Devil as a roaring lion goeth about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist ye, strong in faith. Not in natural reason, humane discourse, orwitt, wherein the Devil would be too hard for mortal men, not assisted by God's holy Grace. SECTION VI Grace Necessary for true Repentance XXVII. TRue Repentance being the immediate disposition to justifying Grace, and Grace being, as divines call it, Semen gloriae, the seed of glory, which in Heaven shall be bestowed on whosoever 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 said, Psalm. 83.12. Gratiam & Gloriam dabit Dominus: Our Lord will give grace and glory to man; but man by his own sole forces will merit and offer them to God. XXVIII. Besides perfect Repentance or Contrition proceeding from Love, and Attrition from Hope; since we have proved that grace is necessary to Love, and Hope, it must also be necessary for both those kinds of repentance. Thus we read Hierem. 31.18.19. Convert me, and I shall be converted. After that thou didst convert me, I did penance: and after thou didst show unto me I strooke my thigh: Thren. 5.21. Convert us, o Lord, unto thee, and we shall be converted. Ezech. 36.26. I will give you a new hart, and put a new spirit in the midst of you: and I will take away the stony hart out of your flesh, and will give you a fleshy hart. And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will make that you walk in my precepts, and keep my judgements, and do them. Psalm. 79. V 4 O God convert us, and show thy face, and we shall be saved. And V 8. O God of Hosts, convert us, and show thy face, and we shall be saved. Psalm: 84. Convert us, o Lord our saviour Psalm. 76. V 11. I said, now have I begun: this is the change of the right hand of the Highest. Psalm. 118. V 176. I Have strayed as a sheep that is lost; seek thy servant, because I have not forgotten thy commandments. Luc. 22, S. Peter wept not till our saviour looked upon him. Act. 5.31. This Prince and Saviour God hath exalted with his right hand, to give repentance to Israël, and remission of sins 2. Timot. 2.24.25.26. The servant of our Lord must not wrangle: but be mild toward all men, apt to teach, patiented, with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: lest sometime God give them repentance to know the truth: and they recover themselves from the snares of the devil, of whom they are held captive at his will. SECTION VII. Grace is necessary for perseverance. XXIX. WE need not insist in proving this truth. For if grace be necessary for Faith, Hope, Charity, Keeping the commandments, and overcommig temptations, much more is it necessary to persever in the state of grace, which requires all those gifts of faith, hope, etc. And places a man in security for salvation, according to that of S. Matt. 10.22. He that shall persever unto the end, he shall be saved: so that to say: Grace is not necessary to persever, is to affirm, that Grace is not necessary for salvation, XXX. This truth we read in S. Io. 15.16. I have appointed you that you go and bring fruit, and your fruit abide. And Heb. 3.12.13.14. Beware brethren, lest perhaps there be in some of you an evil hart of incredulity, to departed from the living God. But exhort yourselves every day, whiles to day is named, none of you be obdurate with the fallacy of sin. For we be made partakers of Christ: yet so if we keep the beginning of his substance firm unto the end. And. Philip. 1.6. trusting this same thing, that he which hath begun in you a good work will perfect it unto the day of Christ jesus. Philip. 2.12.13. With fear and trembling work your salvation. 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 clear; because justifying Grace takes not away ignorance in our understanding; freedom and inconstancy in our will; rebellion in the Appetite; which are the roots and causes of sin; and therefore we need both external Protection to remove extrinsecall impediments of virtue; and occasions of evil; and internal Helps, effectualy assisting, and constantly moving us to good. SECTION VIII That Habitual or justifying Grace is necessary to keep the commandments. XXXII THat there is inherent in the souls of just men a real quality or gift, whereby they are grateful to god, we will prove hereafter; for as much as may belong to our purpose in this work, referring the Reader for a full and exact proof thereof, to the many learned Books of catholic Divines. XXXIII. Now, to the former Heads concerning the Necessity of Actual Grace, I add this about habitual; to confute more and more the ancient and modern Pelagians in general, and some Tenets of Chilling worth in particular; as will appear when we come to examine his chimerical doctrine about repentance. XXXIV. That Habitual Grace is necessary for keeping the commandments, we may prove, in order to the more moderate Protestants, out of the Milevitan Council, which was celebrated within the compass of years which they acknowledge for Orthodox, (namely Anno 416.) wherein can, 3. we read these words: Whosoever shall say, that the Grace of God wherein we are justified by jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for remission of sins already committed, and not also for Help not to commit them; be he accursed. Therefore he who is not in state of Grace, wants some grace and help to avoid sin. And in Concilio Arausicano (Anno 529.) Can. 13. it is defined: Man's freewill weakened in the first man, cannot be repaired but by the Grace of Baptism: But the grace conferred in Batisme is habitual, and permanent: Therefore the weakness of our freewill is renewed, or the strength of it is restored by habitual Grace. XXXV. The reason of this is; because God gives not particular protection and special helps of grace, on which the observation of the commandments depends, except to men in state of grace. For one deadly sin draws after it another, so much the more as a man remains longer in that bad state, like to ponderous weights, which mend their pace, the longer their motion lasts: and so David saith, (Psalm: 37.5.) Mine iniquities are gone over my head: and as a heavy burden are become heavy upon me. If venial transgressions neglected, dispose to mortal, what can be expected from a voluntary abiding in deadly sin? Thus we read Hierem. 23.11, 12. The Prophet and the Priest are polluted. Therefore their way shall be as slippery ground in the dark: for they shall be driven on, and fall therein. And Thren. 1.8. Jerusalem hath sinned a sin, therefore is she made unstable. XXXVI. For which moral point we can allege 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 sin be not speedily wiped away by repentance, Almighty God in his just judgement permitts the soul of the sinner to fall into another sin, that he who by weeping and correcting himself would not wash away what he had committed, may begin to heap sin upon sin. The sin therefore which is not washed away with the sorrow of repentance, is both a sin and cause of sin; because from it proceeds that, whereby the soul of the sinner is more deeply entangled: But the sin which follows out of another sin, is both a sin, and a punishment of sin: because blindness, increasing, 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 self same sin, is both a sin, and the punishment and cause of sin. These last words he hath also in, job lib. 25. C. 13. Agreeable to this, is the saying of the Author Operis imperfecti in Matthaeum C. 21. As when the stern is broken, the ship is carried whersoever the storm drives it: so a sinner having by his sin lost the assistance of divine Grace, doth not what he will, but what the devil will. XXXVII. The same truth is also delivered 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: Therefore they that want the spirit or grace of God, cannot please him, which is done only by keeping the commandments. Thus we find verified by daily experience, That he who is once fallen into deadly sin, doth not easily abstain from committing more, unless he speedily rise again And in this, God's holy will is most just, not giving those helps to his enemies, which he bestows on his friends, whose souls, as his temples, he often visits, enlightens, inflames, and effectually strengthens, to keep his commandments. XXXVIII. It is the true doctrine of Divines, that an infidel cannot abstain from deadly sin, so long as one endued with Faith: He therefore who hath not Charity, cannot avoid mortal sin, so long as he who is in state of grace and charity, and receives those particular helps which are connatural to that blessed condition. S. Thomas (1.2 q. 109. A. 8. corp. gives, as he is wont, a solid reason hereof As, saith he, the inferior appetite ought to be subject to reason, so reason ought to be subordinate to God. As therefore there cannot but arise disordinate motions in the sensitive appetite, if it be not perfectly subject to reason; so if reason be not perfectly subject to God, there cannot but happen many disorders in the reasonable portion of our soul. For when man hath nor his hart settled in God (as in the last end of all his actions) many things offer themselves for the obtaining, or avoiding of which, he forsakes God by breaking his commandments, unless his disordered will be speedily reduced to due order by grace. And indeed, he who wittingly and willingly persevers in sin, is not drawn from it either by considering that it is an offence against God, since he out of deliberate choice and election remains in such an offence; or for the infinite, and innumerable evils which arise from sin; all which he hath considered, and knows that they, or the danger of falling into them, are incurred already, and yet is supposed not to forsake that damnable state: And custom in evil is apt to breed either a secret, or open despair of amendment, or else a pernicious insensibility, security, and presumption, laying the soul open to accept all impressions of spiritual enemies; as in the barren season of winter, hedges are broken, enclosures become commons, and are turned to high ways for all passengers. But now it is time to perform what we promised in the beginning of this Section; that besides Actual grace, there is also a permanent quality, or gift inherent in our soul, whereby we are called, and are indeed just, and Sons, and Heirs, to God, and Coheires to Christ our Lord. SECTION IX. Of Habitual, or justifying Grace in itself. XXXIX. HItherto we have spoken of Actual grace, necessary to works of Christian Piety, Faith, Hope etc. Or of Habitual, in order to the keeping of the commandments. Now we cannot omit to say, something of habitual and permanent justifying supernatural Grace, in itself. Concerning which, heretics, as their manner is, fall upon contrary Extremes: Pelagius, teaching that we may be saved by the forces of nature, consequently must deny, that any infused inherent supernatural Gift was necessary to salvation, but that some natural inherent quality was sufficient. Contrary to which, is the doctrine of Caluin (Lib. 3. jnstit: C. 11. Num: 23. That man is not just by any justice inherent in himself, but only because the justice of Christ is imputed to him. Catholics, avoiding both these extremes, believe, that we are truly just in, not, by ourselves, or our natural forces, but by supernatural Grace infused into our souls, for the merits of our Saviour Christ, as the sacred Council of Trent (Sess. 6. C. 7.) and (Can. 11. hath defined. XL. This is that divine gift which makes men holy in this life, and happy in the next. a Amicus To: 3. disp. 29. n. 119. Other infused Habits are particular participations of Divine operations, namely, Charity, and Hope (respectively) of that love whereby God love's himself, and other things: Faith, of that infallible knowledge which God hath of himself, and all creatures. The light of glory, (lumen gloriae) of that sight which God hath of his proper essence; the moral infused Virtues, of those actions, which God exercises towards his creature: But Grace is a Gift immediately participating of the whole Divine nature, as it can be intellectually participated by an intellectual creature As in our natural life, our soul is the root of its powers, which it requires as propertyes, and is more eminent than they: so in our spiritual life, this Grace is the root of all supernatural Habits, and far exceeds them in perfection. XLI. Of this, in a most singular, manner are verified the Eulogiums which holy Fathers give of grace; b Amicus To: 3. Proem: ante Disp: 26. which according to (S. Gregory, Homil. 27.) is the root of good works; which according to S: Chrisostome Homil 7.2. ad Thimoth: and 1. au Corinth: Hom. 40 takes away the rust of sin, makes the soul resplendent and fiery; which according to S. Augustine Libro de Spiritu & littera Capite 30. & Libro ad Simpitcianum quaest. secunda, enables us to work aright; which according to S. Hierome Lib. 1. adversus Pelagianos Capite tertio, doth whiten; which according to S. Gregory NaZianZen Orat. in sanctum Lava●rum: doth cast its beams upon us, and make us liketo God; which according to N. Austin Epist: 85. is the beauty of the internal man, and the brightness of man's mind; which according to S. Ambrose Lib. 6. Hexameren Cap. 8. is the picture of God; which according to S. Irenaeus lib. 5. adversus haereses Cap. 8. is the image of God; which according to Macarius de libero arbitrio, is the garment of heavenly beauty; which according to S. Greg. Nyssen de perfecta hominis forma, is purity derived from Christ, as the river from the fountain; which according to S. Hierome, Lib: 3. adversus Pelagianos, is the First stole and heavenly dew; which according to S. Gregory Nyssen, Homil. 4. in Cantica, is the riches of the Divine 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 milk of a mother. XLII. But if we consult holy Scripture; this truth, that we are just by true inherent justice, is so frequently, and so clearly delivered therein, that it may seem a wonder, how it can be so much as called in question, by any who believe the Scripture. Let us allege 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 therefore none can deny but that we are sinners by sin or. injustice truly and really inexistent in our souls, it follows that we are just by true inherent Justice. And V 17. If in the offence of one, death reigned by one; much more they that receive the abundance of Grace, and of donation and of justice, shall reign in life by one jesus Christ. But death, though proceeding from, and by one (Adam) was truly participated by all, and not merely imputed to them: Therefore the abundance of Grace, justice, and life is really in all, though by one, Jesus Christ. joan. 4.14. The water which I will give him, shall become a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting. And that this fountain is the Holy Ghost dwelling in us by Grace, or Grace given by the Holy Ghost dwelling in us, appeareth in the 7. Chap: v. 38. of the same Evangelist, where our Saviour having said: He that believeth in me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, adds; and this he said of the spirit that they should receive which believed in him. S. Cyrill also (Lib. 2. in joan: Cap. 82) and Theophilact in cap. 4. joan. call this fountain of living water, the grace of the Holy Ghost. S. Hierome in Cap. 55. Isaiae, and S. Chrisostome Hom. 31. in joan: Sometime call it the Holy Ghost, sometime the grace of the Holy Ghost; neither can any man doubt but that a fountain signify a thing stable and permanent, Rom. 5.5. The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the holy Ghost which is given us. 1. joan: 4.7. Every one that loveth, 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 speaks of a living faith, appears by the Chap: 5. wheres having said: V 4. you are evacuated from Christ, that are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace V 6. he explicates what that grace is, saying: in Christ jesus neither Circumcision availeth aught, nor uncircumcision; but faith that worketh by charity. And Chap. 6. v. 15. this lively faith he calls a new creature, saying: In Christ jesus neither Circumcision availeth aught, nor uncircumcision, 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 forbidden. Or know you not that he which cleaveth to an harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he that cleaveth to our Lord, is one spirit. Fly fornication. What then shall we say of them who blasphemously join the spirit of God with the spirit of satan; the spirit of fornication; and all other vices? XLIII. 1. joan: 4.13. In this we know that we abide in him, and he in us, because he of his spirit hath given to us. joan: C. 15.5. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit. Behold a permanency or abiding, before fruit, or good works. 1. joan; 3. v. 9 Every one that is borne of God, committeth not sin; because his seed abideth in him v. 24. He that keepeth his Commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us by the spirit which he hath given us. Tit: 3.5.6.7. He hath saved us by the Laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, which he poured upon us abundantly by jesus Christ our Saviour. That being justified by his grace we may be heirs according to the hope of life everlasting. All these words clearly signify a supernatural thing permanent and inherent in us, 2. Cor. 1.21.22. He that anointed us, God who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of Spirit in our hearts. 1. joan:. 2.27. The unction which you have received from him, let it abide in you. 2. Pet. 1.4. By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises, that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature. joan: 15.15. Now I call you not servants, but you I have called friends. 2. Cor. 5.18. If then any be in Christ a new creature. 1. Cor. 15.49. As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. joan. 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, whom the world cannot receive, because it seethe 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 love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make abode with him. 1. joan. 3.1. See what manner of charity the Father hath given us, that we should be named, and be the sons of God. Rom. 8.14. Whosoever are led by the spirit of God, are the sons of God. V: 15.17. If sons, heirs also: heirs truly of God, and coheyres of Christ. joan. 1.12.13. As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God. to those that believe in his name: who not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God are borne. Ephes. 1.4. As he chose us 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 salvation) in which also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, which is the pledge of our inheritance. (This promise is made to us, and so we being the Creditors, the pledge must remain with us; and signed signifieth a thing both permanent and intrinsecall.) Like to this we read 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 holiness of the truth: and V 30. contristate not the holy spirit of God; in which you are signed unto the day of redemption. And 2. Cor: 1.21. He that anointed us, God, who also hath sealed us, given the pledge of spirit in our hearts. Rom. 6.23. The stipends of sin, death; but the grace of God life everlasting in Christ jesus our Lord. Rom. 8.14. Whosoever are led by the spirit of God, are the sons 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 living God; as God saith because I will dwell and walk in them. Ephes: 2.21.22. In whom all building framed together groweth into a holy Temple in our Lord: in whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Holy Ghost. 2. Timoth: 1.14. Keep the good depositum by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. joan: 6.57. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, and he that eateth me, the same shall live by me. (Who can deny but that life signify an intrinsical permanent thing?) XLIV. To these authorityes of holy Scripture, which clearly prove that just men are such by a gift inherent, and not due to nature, but supernatural: we might add convincing Reasons, grounded in principles of faith, if it were my purpose to treat this matter at large. But I will content myself with one, taken from the many Texts of holy Scripture which we have alleged (and many more might be brought) in this manner: God concurres to certain Actions, (v. g. Believing hoping &c.) with a particular influence above the natural exigence of humane nature; therefore such Actions are both Good and Supernatural: Good, because it were impiety to say that God doth, or can, by special motion, produce an ill, and sinful Action: Supernatural, because no natural cause alone can produce them, nor hath any natural exigence that they be produced by some more high and powerful cause: as, though our soul cannot be produced by any natural 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 supernatural Actions, it follows that there must be in our soul some supernatural powers, or faculties, as connatural Principles, or Causes of such Actions: therefore such Powers must be granted, as in themselues are supernatural, and absolutely good, without any tincture or stain, or inclination to sinfulness. Which sequels are so clear, that protestants not deny them, but grant at least the supernatural Habits of the three Theological Virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, which is sufficient for our present purpose (though I know not any general ground or doctrine of theirs for which they do, or must, deny the supernatural infused Habits of Moral Virtues) but they deny, that either by these, or any other quality, or Gift we are just in such manner, as that we do not still remain stained with habitual deadly sin: which heresy is clearly confuted by the Eulogiums of the Fathers, and Texts of Scripture, alleged in this, and the former Sections. XLV. For if deadly sin still remain, how doth Grace take away the rust of sin, make the soul resplendent; whiten it; enlighten, and make us like to God? is it the beauty and brightness of our mind; the picture and image of God; the garment of heavenly beauty; purity derived from Christ; the first stole; the riches of the divine essence; the mark of God; since deadly sin is of a direct opposite nature, and produces contrary effects? XLVI. How shall holy Scripture be verified 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 remain truly sinners by the disobedience of Adam, but not truly just by the obedience of Christ, who merited for us justice and grace? How is it true, that if in the offence of one, Death reigned by one, much more they that receive the abundance of grace and of donation and of justice, shall reign in life by one, jesus Christ? For if sin remain, Death also remains, with which. Life cannot reign. How can the holy Ghost be giuen us while we persist in sin? How can he abide in God, and God in him, in whom sin and satan abides? How can Faith work by charity in him who is voluntarily possesd by deadly sin; than which nothing is more repugnant to charity, whose inseparable effect is, effectually to detest all mortal sin; how is he a new creature, who is in state of sin, which alone makes one a child of Adam or the old man, not of Christ; How doth he cleave to God, and is one spirit with him, who cleaveth to sin, and is one spirit with it unless men have a mind to blaspheme and say, that, the spirit of sin, and the spirit of God is all one; how can he who abides in God, and God in him bear much fruit, if jointly he abide in sin, and sin in him; Yea for this very cause that sin still abides in man, these heretics teach, that all our works, or fruits, are deadly sins: so far are they from being fruits of Gods abiding in us! And how doth this agree with that saying, 1. joan. 3.9. Every one that is borne of God, committeth not sin, because his seed abideth in him; seeing sin the seed of the serpent abides in him? Or how doth the continual breach of God's commandments agree with what is said, V 24. He that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him? How can regeneration and renovation of the holy Ghost poured upon us abundantly, stand with deadly sin. which is directy opposite to regeneration and renovation? How is the seal and pledge of spirit in our hearts, together with the seal and pledge of the devil? How can the unction which we have received from him, abide in us in company of deadly sin? How are men partakers of the Divine nature, while they remain in sin, which is most opposite to God and all the Divine perfections; How can we be called friends, being deadly enemies: How can we perform that exhortation of the Apostle. As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heauenly; if we neither are, nor can be free from the image of the earthly, which is sin? How doth the Father give us another Paraclete to abide with us for ever, the spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive; seeing, if all men be in state of deadly sin, they are all comprehended under the name of the world, and so cannot receive the Paraclete, the spirit of truth; How can men be named, and be, the sons of God, heirs of God, and coheyres of Christ, and in the mean time be sons of Satan, heirs to him, and coheyres to damned ghosts How are any borne not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, if all remain overwhelmed in the will of the flesh, and will of man, in sin, and corruption; How are we both holy and immaculate in his sight, and in his sight wicked and polluted; How can we be renewed in the spirit of our mind, and put on the new man, which according to God is created, in justice and holiness of the truth, being in state of deadly sin, which is contrary to renovation of spirit, to the new man created in justice and holyness; How are we signed in the holy spirit of God, while we are signed with the wicked spirit of God's enemies; How are the stipends of sin death, but the Grace of God life everlasting, if there be no Grace of God without sin, and so no Grace that can be life everlasting; How are men the holy Temple of God; how doth he dwell and walk in them; how are they his habitation, how do we live by him, if they be still the Temple and habitation of satan, and live in him? XLVII. Certainly, if any do heartily believe Scripture, and consider unpartially these and the like Texts, and what is said of our Saviour's Satisfaction, and Merit for mankind, and nothing of humane Reason, or forces of nature, except to declare the weakness of them, (contrary to the speeches of Chillingworth) it is inpossible for him, to believe, that men are justified either by any natural Act, or Habit, (which were to evacuate our Saviour's Death) or that we have no inherent true supernatural justice at all, but remain still ugly and defiled in the sight of God, which is to turn both Earth and Heaven (notwithstanding, that, of Heaven it is said Apoc. 21.27. There shall not enter into it any polluted thing) to Hell, in which the worst thing is not the endless pain, but those sins, for which the damned merited that just punishment. For if the torments in Hell were only pains and not punishments, that is, the effect and wages of sin, they were nor so much to be abhorred and avoided, as any least sin or offence of God: Yea, innumerable Saints in Heaven, by this doctrine, are greater sinners than divers who live on earth, or burn in Hell; because many are saved, who were once guilty of sins, more for number, and greater in quality than some other who are damned. o doctrine deserving all detestation! XLVIII. Besides, it is a true Axiom, 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 etc. if indeed they be not perfectly so, but full of the impiety, and stains of sin? Holy Scripture describing the happy fruits, and divine effects of our B. Saviour's Merits, amongst the rest, saith: (Isaia 35.7.) In the dens wherein dragons dwelled before, shall spring up the greenness of reed and bulrush; that is, in the souls of Gentiles, which once were the dens or receptacles of Devils, and vices, there shall arise the greenness of Grace, and Virtue; But that in the dens wherein dragons not only dwelled for the time past, but dwell for the present, there should spring the greenness of reed and bulrush, no scripture doth set down as a benefit. For to couple Grace with sin, were, not to destroy sin, but deform Grace; which to do, cannot be any effect of the Messiah his coming, and our Redemption. XLIX. We must therefore conclude, that just men are endued with a supernatural Gift, which is the nature, and soul of a spiritual man as such; and with which the infused supernatural Habits of Faith &c: are conjoined by jnfusion of the Holy Ghost, and are not produced by our, even supernatural, Acts. Thus glorious S. Austin teaches that these words (Psalm: 118.) I have done judgement and justice, are to be understood of the Act, and not of the Virtue of justice; because, saith he, none produces in man this Virtue of justice, but he who justifyes a sinner, and makes him from become just. L. From this ground, that the infused Virtues and Habits of Faith, Hope &c: are not produced by any Act of ours, but immediately by the Holy Ghost, and that they give us not a facility, but an ability, to produce Acts of Believing, Hoping &c: it further follows, that, we cannot by any, as it were, sensible feeling, or experience, know that we have such Habits; because, as S. Thomas profoundly saith [1.2 Q. 65. A. 3. ad 3. of the infused Habits, even of Moral Virtues, Habitus moralium virtutum infusarum patiuntur interdum difficultatem &c: The Habits of the Moral infused Virtues sometimes find difficulty in their operations, by reason of contrary dispositions remaining of the former Acts, (of vices) which difficulty is not found in moral acquired virtues, in regard that by the exercise of Acts by which they are acquired, the contrary dispositions (for example, Passions, indisposition of corporal organs, and the like) are taken away. LI Now these things being so, in vain would Chilling: prove, that the virtue of Charity may stand with deadly sin, or Faith with Heresy, (as I touched above) by reason men find facility in some seeming Acts of Charity, or Faith, though they be guilty of deadly sins, or Heresy. Because, as I said, the infused virtues, cannot be proved by experience, but the said facility may proceed from some other reason, as for example, from acquired Habits of Faith, Charity etc. or from the removal of impediments, Passions, disposition of the material organs of our body, and the like: and much less can we gather that we have, or want; or have in a more intense, or remiss degree, the infused supernatural Habits, by our having, or wanting, or possessing in a greater, or less measure or number, Habits acquired by exercise of natural acts, seeing natural and supernatural habits are in nature and kind wholly different. LII. This I hope, may suffice for what I intended for proving the necessity of grace, and weakness of nature in matters belonging to heaven; As also for showing the utility and necessity of this Introduction. LIII. Let us now come to handle the matter itself: for which I know, and acknowledge the necessity of grace: and therefore renouncing all confidence in humane reason, and force of nature, with profoundest humility beg of the Eternal Father, for the Merits of his only son Christ jesus, true God and true Man, the assistance of the holy Ghost, and his divine spirit of Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Strength, Knowledge, Piety, and above all, the spirit of the Fear of our Lord, moving and assisting me willingly to suffer death, rather than wittingly utter any least falsehood, or conceal any truth in matters concerning Faith and Religion; and so prostrate in soul and body, I pray with the Wiseman Sap. 9 4.10. O Lord of mercy, give me wisdom the assistant of thy seats: send her from thy holy Heavens, and from the seat of thy greatness, that she may be with me, and may labour with me, that so my labours, of themselves most weak, may by Grace tend, first to the Glory of the most blessed Trinity, and next, to the eternal good of souls. CHAP I. CHRISTIAN FAITH, NECESSARY TO SALVATION, IS INFALLIBLY TRUE. 1. AS all Catholics have reason to grieve, that we were necessitated, to prove the necessity of God's grace, against our modern Pelagians; so every Christian, yea every 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 prove the Certainty, and Infallibility of Christian Faith, which M. Chillingworth not only denies, but deeply censures (Pag. 328 Nᵒ 6.) as a Doctrine most presumptuous and unchariatble; and Pag. 325. N. 3. as a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence: and takes much pains to prove the contraay. that is, the fallibility of Christian Faith. A strange undertaking! whereby he is sure to lose by winning, and by all his Arguments to gain only this Conclusion, that his Faith in Christ, of Scripture, and all the mysteries contained therein, may prove fabulous and false. And yet I confess it to be a thing very certain and evident, that the denial of jnfallibility in God's Church, for deciding controversyes of Faith, must inevitably cast men Upon this desperate, , and Antichristian doctrine: and while Protestants maintain the Church to be fallible, they cannot avoid this sequel, that their doctrine may be false; since without jnfallibility in the Church, they cannot be absolutely certain, that Scripture is the word of God. O what a scandal do these men cast on Christian Religion, by either directly acknowledging, or laying grounds from which they must yield Christian Faith not to be jnfallibly true; while jews, Turks, Pagans' and all who profess any religion, hold their belief to be jnfallible, and may justly upbraid us, that even Christians confess themselves not to be certain that they are in the right, and have, with approbation of greatest men in a famous University, published to the world such their sense and belief! In the mean time, in this occasion, as in divers others, I cannot but observe, that Heretics always walk in extremes. This man teacheth Christian Faith in general, and the very grounds thereof not to be infallibly certain. Others affirm, Faith to be certain even as it is applied to particular persons, whom they hold to be justified by an absolute certain belief, that they are just. 2. But now let us come to prove this truth: Christian Faith is absolutely and infallibly true, and not subject to any least falsehood. wherein although I maintain the cause of all Christians, and of all men, and mankind, who by the very instinct of nature, conceive the true Religion to signify a thing certain, as proceeding from God, and upon which men may, and ought securely to rely, without possibility of being deceived; and that for this reason the whole world ought to join with me against a common adversary: yet even for this very reason, I know not whether to esteem it a more dissicile task, or lamentable necessity, that we are, in a matter of this moment and quality, to prove Principles, or a Truth which ought to be no less certain, than any Argument that can be brought to prove it; as hitherto all good Christians have believed, nothing to be more certainly believed by Christian Faith, than that itself is most certain. Yet confiding in his Grace, whose Gift we acknowledge Faith to be, I will endeavour to prove and defend this most Christian and fundamental truth, against the pride of humane wit, and all presumption upon natural forces. 3. Our first reason may be taken from that which we have touched already of the joint conceit, unanimous consent, and inbred sense of men, who conceive Divine Faith and Religion to imply a certainty of Truth: and if they did once entertain a contrary persuasion, they would sooner be carried to embrace no religion at all, than weary their thoughts in election of one rather than another, being prepossessed, that the best can bring with it no absolute certainty. Thus by the universal agreement of men we prove that there is a God, and from thence conclude, that the belief of a Deity proceeds from the light of nature; which also assures us that God hath a providence over all things, and cannot want means to communicate himself with reasonable creatures by way of some light, and knowledge exempt from fear, or possibility of fraud or falsehood; especially since Rational nature is of itself 〈…〉 truth and Religion or worship of a God. This consideration is excellently pondered and delivered by S. Austin. (de utilitate credendi, Cap. 16.) in these words. Authority alone is that which incites ignorant persons, that they make haste to wisdom. Till we can of ourselves understand the truth, it is a miserable thing to be deceyved by Authority: yet more miserable it is not to be moved therewith. For if the Divine providence do not command humane things, no care is to be taken of Religion. But if the beauty of all things, which, without doubt, we are to believe to flow from some fountain of most true pulcritude, by a certain internal feeling doth publicly and privately exhort all best souls to seek and serve God: We cannot despair, that by the same God there is appointed some Authority, on which we relying, as upon an infallible step, may be elevated to God. Behold a means to attain certainty in belief by some infallible authority appointed by God, which can be none but the Church, from which we are most certain, what is the written, or unwritten, word of God 4. M. Chillingworth professes to receive Scripture from the universal Tradition of all Churches, (though yet there is scarcely any book of Scripture, which hath not been questioned or rejected by some) much more therefore ought all Christian to believe, Christian Faith to be jnfallible, as being the most universal judgement and Tradition of all Christians, for their Christian's belief, and of all men for their several Professions in point of Religion. And as men ought not to be removed from believing that there is a God, though to our weak undestandings, there be presented Arguments touching his Nature, Freedom of will, Providence, Prevision, and the like, of far 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 poor objections, which this man and his Associates with equal impiety and boldness make against it. And therefore both in the belief of a God, and certainty of Faith, Religion, and worship of him, we are to follow the certain instinct of Nature, and conduct of Piety, not the uncertainty of our weak understanding, or liberty of will. 5. For this cause, as I said, not only all Catholics with a most Unanimous consent believe, profess, and proclaim this truth, (in somuch as S. Bovauenture in 3. Dist. 24. Art. ●. Q. 1. avoucheth 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 falsehood, than the Prime Uerity) but Protestants also, and in particular, D. Potter, who Pag. 143. speaks clearly, thus: The chief principle or ground on which Faith rests, and for which it firmly assents unto those truths which the Church propounds, is divine Revelation made in the Scripture. Nothing less than this, nothing but this, can erect or qualify an act of supernatural Faith which must be absolutely undoubted and certain; and without this, Faith is but opinion, or at the most, an acquired humane belief. And (Pag. 140.) Humane authority, consent, and proof may produce an humane or acquired Faith, and infallibly (in some sort) assure the mind of the truth of that which is so witnessed, but the assent of divine Faith is absolutely divine, which requires an object, and motive so infallibly true, as that it neither hath, nor can possibly admit of any mixture of error or falsehood. Behold how he affirms, that Christian Faith doth more than only, in some sort, assure us of the truth, (as Chillingworth will say it doth by an assent highly probable) but that it must be absolutely divine, which he contradistinguishes from humane Faith, making this, not that, absolutely certain And indeed to little purpose should Potter, and all other Divines require an Objest and Motive jnfallibly true, if likewise our assent to it be not jnfallible. What avails it, that Divine Authority be certain and jnfallible in itself, if in the mean time it remayme uncertain, whether such a Divine and jnfallible Authority interpose itself, or witness any thing. 6. But nothing can be imagined more effectual and express against Chillingworth, who (Pag. 325. N. 3.) saith; That there is required of us a knowledge of the Articles of our Faith, and adherence to them, as certain as that of sense, or science, is a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence; Nothing, I say, can be more clear against this pernicious doctrine of Chillingworth, than these words of Potter Pag. 199. Though the assent of Faith be more certain (if it be possible) than that of sense, or science, or demonstration; because it rests on divine Authority, which cannot possibly deceive: yet it is also an assent inevident and obscure both in regard of the object, which are things that do not appear, [Hebr. 11.1.] And in respect of the subject, the eye of Faith, in this state of mortality, being dim, and apprehending heavenly things as through a glass darkly. [1. Cor. 13.12.] What could have been spoken more directly of the certainty, and yet inevidency, of Faith against Chillingworth, who both denies that Faith is absolutely certain and that certainty can be without evidency, as may be seen Pag. 330. N. 7.] D, Lawd [Pag. 227.] saith, As for moral certainty, that's not strong enough in points of Faith. and [Pag. 360.] he directly affirms, that an jnfallible certainty is necessary for that one faith which is necessary to salvation: which is the very same with our Title of this Chapter. And Pag. 142. he saith: That falsehood, may be the subject of the Catholic Faith were no less than blasphemy to affirm; and yet Mr. Chillingworths' Book where in this blasphemy is purposely taught, is expressly approud as agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, by every one of the three Approbators, who can best give account, by whose Authority they were induced to so pernicious, and foul a fact. 7. But why do I allege particular Persons: This of the fallibility of faith is opposed 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 preferred before all reason. 8. And here is to be observed, that Chillingworth, disagreeing from Protestants in this maine, general, transcendental point, differs from them for every particular, in an essential attribute or perfection of Faith; seeing an assent only probable, is essentially distinguished from an assent absolutely and infallibly certain; 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 blow all the true belief of Christians, by making it not certain; whereby men become no Christians, as not believing in Christ with divine certain faith. His tenet [Pag. 367. N: 49.] that he who disbelieves one Article, may yet believe an other with true divine faith, is in no wise to be approoud but this his doctrine, that Faith is fallible, is far worse, as disbelieving all, and positively denying that certainty which is essential to divine Faith, and distinguisheth it from Opinion, or humane belief. 9 This fundamental truth, that faith is absolutely certain, is very clearly delivered in Holy Scripture. S. Paul 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 margin,) the ground or confidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. All which signify a firm, certain, and, as I may say, substantial faith, stronger than any assent only probable. Thus holy S. Bernard [Ep. 190.] disputing against Abailardus, who taught that Faith was but Opinion, saith. Audis substantiam? non licet tibi in fide putare, vel disputare pro libitu &c Dost thou hear the name of substance? it is not lawful for thee in Faith to think or dispute at thy pleasure, nor wander hither and thither, through the emptiness of opinions, or strayings, of errors. By the name of substance something certain and settled is apppointed thee. Thou art shut up within certain bounds, and confined within limits which are certain, for faith is not an Opinion, but a certainty. But concerning this Text of S. Paul, more shall be said hereafter out of excellent words of S. Chrisostome. The same Apostle, [Heb. 6. V 17. 18. 19] saith: God meaning more abundantly to show to the heirs of the promise the stability of his counsel, he interposed an Oath. That by two things unmovable, whereby it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a most strong comfort, who have fled to hold fast the hope proposed, which we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm. But how can we have a most strong comfort, an anchor of the soul, sure and sirme; or how doth he show to the heirs of his promise the stability of his counsel, if the faith of Christians be reduced to probabilities, which are not stable, but, of themselves, subject to change, and falsehood, and for aught we know, may finally prove to be such, as long as we have 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 ever interposed an Oath, or ever witnessed, or revealed any thing? [1. thessal 2.12.] We give thanks to God without intermission, because when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you receyved 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, Motive, and Formal Object, and therefore, certain, infallible, and above all humane faith, opinion, and probability. For this cause the Apostle gives thanks to God, because when they had receyved the word of God, they receyued it as such, declaring that they believed with an assent requiring Gods special Grace, (for which, thanks are to be giuen) elevating the soul above the forces of nature to a supper natural certain Act proportionable, as I said, to so sublime an Authority. [2. Tim. 1.12.] I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to keep my depositum unto that day: Where S. Paul speaks of God as a judge, and of the day of judgement, and reward of the just, which are Articles of Christian Faith, not known by the light of reason. This Text is alleged 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 cries out, I know whom I have believed, and I am certain; and dost thou whisper, Faith is opinion; dost thou prate as of a doubtful thing, concerning that, than which nothing is more certain? [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 jesus, whom you have crucified. (2. Pet. 1.19.) We have the prophetical word more sure: which you do well attending unto, as to a candle shining in a dark place. In which words the Apostle compares the saying of the Prophets (which we believe by faith) concerning Christ our Saviour, with the sight of the eyes, and hearing of the ears of the Apostles on Mount Thabor, when they saw our Saviour's glory, and heard the voice of his Father, saying, This is my beloved Son, and yet saith, that the Prophetical word is more sure. And by this place we also gather, that faith, though it be jnfallible and certain, yet is inevident and obscure, like to a candle in a dark place which obscures the light of the candle: against the doctrine of Chillingworth, that certainty and obscurity are incompatible. (Luke. 21.33.) Heaven and Earth shall pass; but my words shall not pass. Surely, if his words were believed by us only with a probable assent, we could not in good reason think they were more stable than heaven and earth, which by evidence of sinse, and reason, we see to be constant, firm, and permanent. (1. joan. 5.) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, But as I said above, what imports it that the testimony of God is greater in itself, if we can assent to it no more firmly than the Arguments of Credibility, or history, and humane tradition, and testimony of men enable us? For by this means 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 whereof we must affirm in his principles, who reduceth Christian Faith to the Power (or rather jmpotency) of humane tradition, and reason. Which last Texts do clearly overthrew his doctrine, that we believe the Scripture for humane fallible Tradition, and testimony of men, not for the jnfallible Authority of God's Church. 2. Pet. 1.21. For, not by man's will was prophecy brought at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired with the Holy Ghost. What need of divine inspiration for assenting probably to a Conclusion, evidently deduced from premises evidently probables or how can the Holy Ghost inspire an assent which may prove false? [1. Pet. 5.9.] Whom resist ye, strong in Faith. [Tob. 3.21.] This hath every one for certain, that worshippeth thee, that his life, if it be in probation, shall be crowned. [joan. 10.35.] If he called them Gods, to whom the word of God was made, and the Scripture cannot be broken. May not the Scriptures be broken in order to us, if, for aught we certainly know, their Authority is not divine, nor the points they contain, true? [Act. 2.24.] Whom God hath raised up losing the sorrows of Hell, according as it was impossible that he should be holden of it. Now, if our belief of Scripture and contents thereof, be only probable, we cannot be certain 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 whosoever believes any point only with probability, hath in his understanding no disposition, which of itself, is repugnant to probability, and much less to possibility, for the contrary part. Coloss. 1. V 21. 22. 23. And you, whereas you were sometime alienated, and enemies in sense, in evil works: yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh by death, to present you holy and immaculate and blameless before him; if you continue in the Faith, grounded and stable, and unmoveable from the Gospel which you have heard, which is preached among all creatures that are under Heaven. Observe, that the Apostle not only speaks 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 enemies, and to be presented holy and immaculate, and blameless before him, that is, such a faith as is absolutely necessary to salvation, which is that which Chilling: expressly and purposely denies. See of this place what I allege afterward out of S. Chrisostome. Gal. 1.8.9. Although we, or an Angel from Heaven, evangelise to you, beside that which we have evangelized to you, be he Anathema. As we have said before, so now I say again; if any evangelise to you, beside that which you have received, be he Anathema. Certainly if our Faith be but probable, it were against reason not to believe an Angel from Heaven avouching the contrary. But of this Text more hereafter. Now let us see what is the sense of the holy Fathers for this point. 10. S. Dionysius Areopagita [Cap: 7. the Diuin: Nomin:] saith: Eum qui in veritate credit iuxta Scripturae fidem, nihil removebit a verae fidei auctore in quo constantiam immobilis atque immutabilis habebit. Novit enim penitus is, etc. Him, who in truth believes according to the faith of Scripturè, nothing will remove from the author of true faith, in whom he being unmoveable and immutable will have constancy. For well knows he who is joined unto truth, how well he is, albeit many reprehend him as a mad man and distracted, S. Basill. [Ep. 43.] add Gregor. Nyssenum. Even as in those things which appear to the eye, experience seems to go further than the reason of the cause; so in sublime matters of doctrine, faith itself is of more account than the reach of discourses. And [in a Serm. vpon the 115. Psalm.] Let faith go before and guide speeches concerning God. Faith, and not Demonstration, Faith which draws the soul unto assent, above rational methodes. (Faith above logic discourses, and above Demonstration.) In Regulis moralib: Regula 80. Faith is a most certain satisfaction of the mind concerning the truth of divine words. [S: chrysostom Hom: 21. in Ep: ad Hebr.] upon those words Cap: 11. Est autem Fides sperandarum substantiâ rerum, argumentum eorum quae non videntur, saith: O how admirable a word used he, saying: An Argument of those things which are not seen. For it is an Argument in things very hidden: Faith therefore is (saith he) a seeing of things which appear not, and it leads unto the same certainty, to which those also lead which are seen. Therefore neither can it be called credulity or incredulity of those things which are seen; nor again can it be called faith, but when one shall have certainty concerning those things which are not seen, more than concerning those things which are seen. And Hom: 4. in Ep: ad Coloss. upon those words Coloss. C. 1. Siquidem permanseritis Fide fundati, ac stabiles, & non dimoti in Spe evangely: he saith: He did not absolutely say; shall persist. For it may come to pass that he persist also who wavereth and disagrees. He also may stand and remain who wanders up and down and errs: but if (saith he) ye shall persist grounded and stable, and not moved. What could be spoken more clearly for the stable infallibility of Faith against the probable floating faith of Chillingworth; as if this Saint had purposely impugned him out of holy Scripture, so many ages before 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 overcoming temptations against it, that it clearly appears he requires an other kind of Faith, then only a probable Assent. For speaking of one who believes, he saith. This man hath God a debtor, and a debtor not of vulgar matters, but of great and high ones. Moroever having showed the sublimity and spiritual thought of such a man's mind, he did not absolutely say, (credenti: to him that believes, sed credenti in eum qui justificat impium: but to him that believes in him who justifyes the wicked) For think with thyself, how great a matter this is, namely, to believe, and to conceive a certain persuasion that God can on a sudden not only free from deserved punishment him who hath spent his life in jmpiety, but also make him just, and furthermore bestow on him immortal honours. And upon these words: Sed robustus factus est side. But he (Abraham) was made strong in faith, he saith; that he treated both of those who perform works, and of those also who believe, he shown that he who believes, does a greater work than the other, and hath need of greater fortitude and strength. And he shown, that not he only who exerciseth temperance, or some other like virtue, but he also who believeth needs very great strength and power. For, even as he hath need of great strength for resisting the assaults of intemperancy; so likewise this man must have great courage to resist and keep himself from thoughts of disbelief. Wherein then did he prove himself to be strong; he committed (saith he) the matter to Faith, not unto conjectures. Otherwise he would have failed and lost courage. Neither said he (S. Paul of Abraham) merely believing, but having conceived a certain persuasion, (our vulgar hath plenissime sciens, Rheims 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 mind, and therefore hath greater force in persuading. For it wavereth not if perhaps some other thought do present itself. For he that lies open to the discourses of a mind moved hither and thither, may verily also alter his iudgment. But one that firmly settles himself by Faith, shutteth his hearing and fortifyeth it as it were with a trench, against hurtful thoughts. These words of this holy Doctor do not only affirm, but prove the necessity of an jnfallible Faith, unless we will be always in perplexityes, doubts, and danger of denying Christian Religion. (S. Ambrose. Enarratione in Psalm. 40.) As there are some who have eyes, and see not; so there be some who not seeing with their eyes, are believed to see more. Whence also Prophets were called Seers, even those who did not see with their eyes. (S. Hierome. Ep. 61. ad Pammachium. C. 3.) will you know, how great the fervour is of those who believe aright? Give ear to the Apostle. Although we, or an Angel from heaven should evangelise otherwise unto you, be he accursed. And, (in Cap. 1. Ep. ad Galat.) the Apostle shows the firmeness of his faith, saying. I know, that neither death, nor life, etc. And contralily, if Faith were not most certainly true, who could be obliged to die for averringe the truth thereof; which is the argument brought by S. Bernard against Abailardus, saying. (Ep. 190.) Fool's therefore were our Martyrs suffering so grievous punishments for uncertain things, not doubting through a hard passage to suffer a long banishment for a doubtful reward. (S. Austin, Tom. 10. de verbis Dom. Serm. 63.) Speaking of an Article of Christian Faith, saith. Albeit we see not this with our eyes, nor with our hart, as long as we are cleansed by Faith, yet do we believe it by faith most rightly and most strongly. (Surely this signify more than to believe only with probability.) [Richardus de S. Victore, 1. de Trinit. Cap. 2.] As many of us as are truly faithful, hold nothing with more certainty, than that which we believe by faith. 11. What we have proved by Authority, we now will convince by Theological Reasons and Arguments. First; we have demonstrated out of holy Scripture, that Faith is an especial Gift of God, and that the Act or Assent thereof proceeds from a particular Grace, Motion, Prevention, and Supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost: Therefore it cannot be but true; otherwise we might distrust the Truth of Scriptures, and the predictions of the Prophets, though we did believe those to have been written, and these to have been spoken, by the direction and instinct of God himself. And what more satisfying assurance can there be given to any Christian, yea to any reasonable creature, than this; God leads me this way therefore it cannot be but right, neither can I err in following it, and every way contrary to this must be wrong, and erroneous Chilling, [Pag. 258. N. 16.] confesseth that a thing untrue cannot be foreseen by the Prophets. Which he could not affirm, if God could move men to believe a falsehood. And [Pag. 36. N. 8.) he says. We cannot possibly by natural means be more certain of the conclusion than of the weaker of the Premises, which supposes that by supernatural means we may be more certain: And [N. 9] he doubts not but that the spirit of God may and will advance his servants, and give them a certainty of adherence, beyond their certainty of evidence. Since therefore every 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 believe by a true Act of Christian Faith, that is, we must say, that even according to Chillingworth, all true Christians believe with absolute certainty, and with an assent higher than that which we yield to probable premises. 12. And out of this most certain and Christian truth, that Faith is the gift of God, and requires his particular assistance above the force of nature, it follows also by evidence of Reason, that it must be an Assent above all Probabilities, or Arguments of Credibility. For abstracting from some accidental impediment, or temptation, our Understanding is able of itself, to draw a probable Conclusion from evident probable premises. And therefore seeing we can never by natural forces exercise an Act of true Christian Faith, it follows clearly, that it must be an Assent more than probable, and raised above all arguments of credibility. Chilling. saith [Pag. 116. N. 159.] We have, I believe, as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England, as that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. But as I noted above, no man in his wits will say, that we cannot by natural forces of humane reason believe that there was such a man as Henry the eight, Therefore no man ought to say, that with the same forces of humane Reason we cannot believe that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, if Faith be only such a probable Assent. 13. Beside, if Faith do not excèede the force of nature, seeing Faith is the first beginning of Obedience, Merit and Salvation, the beginning of all these should be attributed to nature, and not to Grace; yea if one can believe by the force of nature, so also he may Hope, and Love, and attain Beatitude by the same. And how shall Beatitude itself be Supernatural, if the means to attain it, be natural? Thus the main ground of Chilling. That Faith is a Conclusion or Assent drawn from probable Premises, and proportioned to them, being overthrowue, all his Reasons relying on this ground, vanish into nothing. But yet let us more and more prove this truth, and turn the weapons of our Adversaries against themselves, by demonstrating that Christian Faith must raise us above the Arguments of Credibility; which I do in this manner. 14. If Faith exceed not the assent which we give to the probable motives of Credibility, there could be no captivating of our understanding, nor Obedience or Freedom of will in believing the Articles of Faith. But we are to captivated our understanding, and exercise free obedience of our will in believing the Articles of Faith; Therefore Faith must raise us above the Arguments of Credibility. The mayor is clear. For where there is evidence and necessity to assent, there is no place for captivating or submitting our understanding, or free and voluntary obedience of our will, which Chilling: confesses (Pag. 329. N. 7.) where speaking of obedience in Faith, he saith: which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience, as there is not where the utderstanding does all, and the will nothing. Neither can it avail him to say, as he saith in the same place, that the Faith of Protestants implies an act of obedience, because it is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration. For this is nothing to the purpose, as long as he believes the Articles of Faith, with no higher than a probable assent, proportionable to probable Arguments, and rises not to a certainty of sense, demonstration, or any other, above these probable Motives; because his fallible, and only probable faith hath the certanty and evidence of demonstration for such a degree of probability; it being no more certain and evident, that a Conclusion drawn 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 affirms (Pag. 36. N. 8.) saying: God desires only that we believe the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserve; and (N. 9) God requires of all, that their faith should be proportionable to the motives enforcing to it; mark enforcing, and Pag. 112. N 154. Neither God doth, nor man may require of us as our duty (observe what obedience and duty he requires) to give a greater assent to the Conclusion than the Premises deserve. And finally, this is his main ground to prove, that Christian Faith is not infallible, but only probable, that is, such only as he holds the Premises and Arguments of Credibility to be: whereby it is evident that in his way there is left no place for captivating our understanding, 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 denied by any who believes Holy Scripture; as appears (2. Cor. 10.5.) B ringing into captivity all understanding unto the obedience of Christ. (Rom. 1.5.) By whom (jesus Christ) we receyved 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 upon the sacrifice and service of your Faith, I rejoice and congratulate with you all. And the selfsame thing do you also rejoice, and congratulate with me. What great sacrifice, service, or obedience is a faith only probable, and necessarily inferrd from probable Premises▪ 16. Morover, that Faith doth not necessitate our understanding, but is free and voluntary even quoad specificationem, as Divines speak, that is, in such manner, as it is in our will to believe the contrary of what we believe by Faith, and for that cause requires God's particular assistance, and a pious affection in the will, and a submitting, or captivating of our understanding, is gathered out of divine Scriptures, that upon the same preaching of the Gospel, some believed, and some believed not, as we read (Act. 17.32.34.) Certain mocked, but certain said; we will hear thee again concerning this point. But certain men joining unto him, did believe. (Marc 16.15.16.) Going into the whole world preach the Gospel to all creatures. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (V. 14.) he exprobated their incredulity. Which shows, that jnfidelity is a sin; and sin supposeth liberty to the contrary. (Rom. 10.16. But all do not obey the Gospel. This supposeth that some believe not, and that some other believe, and in believing exercise a free Act of obedience Gen. 15.) Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. [Heb. 11.] it is said that God prepared for the Fathers an everlasting city, and that they got a repromission by Faith. [joan. 20.] Blessed are they, who have not seen, and have believed. [Luc. 2.] Blessed art thou who hast believed. But a meritorious act, or deserving such praises, must be free. Now Chillingworths faith is such as necessitates the understanding to assent, (at least that it cannot assent to the contrary) as hath been showed; Therefore his Faith is not that Christian belief, which Holy Scripture commands, that is, a free Assent, captivating our understanding, and raising it above all the Motives of Credibility or Probability, and consequently, absolutely certain and infallible; whereby we voluntarily submit, and perfectly subject our soul to God, and his supreme authority. For whereas we may distinguish four sorts of Knowledge; whereof the First is Experimental or of senses. 2. Scientifical. 3. Humane Faith. 4. Divine Faith; Man ought to be subject to God by a voluntary knowledge, and such the first and second sort is not. The third is imperfect, as the authority on which it relies, is subject to error. The fourth than remains, as it were Religion, or highest worship, called latria, or the greatest submission, whereby the will perfectly subject unto God, subjecteth unto him the other powers, which are subordinate unto itself; and it is great impiety to believe, that God hath not enabled Christians, to offer to their creator, and Redeemer, a service or Obedience, connatural to the Divine Authority, Perfection, and Testimony. 17. This reason drawn from Obedience, exercised in the act of Christian Faith, is further enforced thus. The command of the will, or Pious affection which Divines require in Faith, produceth in the understanding a more firm assent, than would be produced without (a) Vide Card: Lugo de Fide Disp. 10. Sect. 2. N. 19 it, as we see by experience, that men obstinate in error, or strongly affected to some truth, produce by their will a more firm assent than otherwise it would have been: yea the command of the will, affection, passion, and the like, move men to assent to that, unto which otherwise they would not assent, or from which perhaps they would descent. Therefore seeing the will can move the understanding to produce the substance of an act, much more may it determine us to produce more degrees of assent, or descent, than otherwise it would. Although therefore it were granted, that a Conclusion formally as such, can have no greater strength than it receives from the Premises, yet the same conclusion, or object taken materially, may receive greater strength, from some other cause, than it did receive from the Premises, as such; as the same material truth, which, being inferred from probable Premises, is only probable, may grow to be certain, if it be deduced from demonstrative arguments. Therefore Chillingworths ground, that the Assent of Faith, being a Conclusion drawn from probable Premises, can be no more than probable; is either false; if it be understood, that by no other means it can be made more than probable; or impertinent, if he mean, that it cannot exceed probability, precisely and formally as it is a Conclusion inferred from probable Premises; it being sufficient for our purpose, that it be improved to a certainty by some other means. Yea since he grants that our Assent of Faith receives from the Arguments of Credibility the highest degree of probability, and that indeed it receives a further perfection from the Pious Affection, and prudent command of the will, we must conclude, that it is raised above the highest degree, of a probable to a certain Assent: Which yet is more and more evinced by this following consideration. 18. It is impossible that Christian Faith can retain the highest degree of probability (as Chilling. pretends) if it have no greater perfection, than it receives from the sole probable Arguments of Credibility. Therefore we must find some other ground on which, Christian Faith relies, than merely such arguments. The antecedent I prove thus: For (to omit what some perhaps will say, that at least the Assent of Faith, which he saith 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 Motives of Credibility, considered alone, may move the understanding to the highest degree of probability, and such as one cannot entertain without a prudent doubt of the contrary; yet if they be compared and confronted with very great difficultyes objected against them, by reason that the mysteries of Christian Faith, which really are superior, and seemingly are contrary to natural 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 love an object which appears good, when it attends not to any reason or formality of some evil, nevertheless it is not necessarily carried to love that object, when it perceiveth any evil therein; so the understanding, so long as truth is proposed without any thing offered to the contrary, necessarily, or easily yields assent; but if contrary difficultyes be represented, it is apt to pause, and consider, and perhaps doubt, or fear, and must needs fall somewhat from its former confidence, adhesion, and assent, if it be left to itself, and not assisted with greater strength, than can arise from mere probabilities, encountered, and balanced with contrary seeming strong reasons. And as Chilling. speaking to Catholics, saith (Pag. 113. N. 154.) I hope you will give us leave to consider whether the motives to your Church be not impeached, and opposed with compulsives and enforcements from it: so others will say of the Motives to Christian Religion; that they are impeached with contrary compulsives from it, besides the sublimity of the Misteryes themselves above humane Reason, which is apt to doubt of whatsoever it doth not ynderstand; as we fear not only bad, but also unknown paths, and as to our eye the clearest sky, if it be almost beyond our kenning, seems to be a kind of darkness. Thus than the probability of Chillingworths' faith, being brought down from the highest pretended degree of probability, becomes compatible with good, and great probability of the contrary side; (as heat and cold, if neither of them be in the most intense degree, may stand together) and consequently, the understanding may conceive not only a possibility, but a probability also, and a fear that the Christian Religion is false. For avoiding which wicked sequel, there is no other remedy, except to acknowledge Faith to be an Assent certain and infallible, above all probability of humane Motives, or arguments of Credibility. 19 And in this occasion we may observe, that the examples usually alleged to prove, that we can no more doubt of the Conclusion drawn from the Arguments of Credibility, than a man doubts whether such an one be his father, and the like; do not urge, 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 etc. and none to the contrary. But it happeneth otherwise in our case: there being many and hards objections obvious to humane reason, against the mysteries of Faith, which may diminish that degree of assent, which otherwise might be grounded upon the Arguments of Credibility, if they were considered alone; as one could not believe such a man to be his father, if he had some very probable proofs for the contrary, with the same firm persuasion, as he would do, in case no such proofs did offer themselves: and so, as I said, this and the like Arguments and examples, may be retorted againist those who bring them: and still we must conclude, that we cannot believe Christian Religion as we ought, without an absolute, certain, and jnfallible Assent; which will more appear by the Reason following. 20. These very Motives of Credibility manuduce and send us up to an Authority, which is able to transfuse greater perfection to our Assent, than they themselves can give. Because they tell us of Objects to be believed for Divine Revelation, and so proclaim themselves to be only Dispositions and Preparations, which being supposed, God affords his particular Grace for producing an Act proportionable to his Divine Testimony, as, with some proportion, by hearing or reading spiritual things, the species are excited, and God by that occasion gives inspiration for Faith, Hope, Charity etc. above the natural power of the external words; and as Experimental knowledge by sense, is a Disposition to Scientifical knowledge, which yet takes not its nature, essence, and perfection from the senses. 21. From hence it follows, that men are obliged to believe Christian Religion, not in what manner soever, but as a Doctrine delivered and revealed by God, and therefore to be embraced above all; that is, above all contrary objects or objections, and not to be altered upon any occasion, supposition, or authority of men or Angels, as S. Paul teaches us by an impossible supposition, to express the matter home. Galat 1.8. Although we, or an Angel from Heaven evangelise to you, beside that which we have evangelized to you, be he anathema. This admonition or denunciation of S. Paul, must needs suppose Christian Faith to be above all probability. For it is evidently against reason, to join together these two judgements, or Assertions: This doctrine is only probable, and grounded only in probable and credible Arguments, and yet; That it is reasonable, or necessary, òr even possible to assent to it in such manner, as never to believe the contrary, though reasons, seeming, upon the best examination a man can make, better than the former, should offer themselves against it; seeing it is certain that he cannot be certain, that better reasons cannot possibly be offered. For if he be certain that better reasons for the contrary are not possible; his assent is not probable, but certain. Therefore since we are not to forsake Christian Religion for whatsoever possible motive, or Reason, or Authority of Men, or Angels, we must give it absolute certainty, and not only probability. 22. And because this kind of Argument, is of greater moment than perhaps appears at first sight, I will dilate it by saying further; that according to his Assertion about the probability of faith, no Christian, yea no man can be settled in any Religion; since he must be ready to change whensoever better reasons shallbe presented against it; neither can he be certain that he may not sooner, or later find some such reason. For, a faith only probable is a perpetual Temptation to itself; and we may truly say, Accedens tentator dicit, in the present Tense, seeing Probability doth not exclude some fear that the contrary may be true. Nay every consideration about Faith, to such men as Chill., who love to be esteemed considering and discoursing men, is more than a Temptation; it is a yielding, or consent against Faith, inuoluing this judgement; Perhaps that which I believe, 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 Catholics, because they either out of idleness refuse the trouble of a scuere trial of their Religion, or out of superstition fear the event of such a trial, that they may be scrupled, and staggered, and disquieted by it; and therefore for the most part do it not at all; or if they do it, they do it without indifference, without liberty of judgement, without a resolution to leave it if it prove apparentily false. My own experience assures me, that in this imputation I do you [Catholics] no injury: but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrine among mortal sins. For from hence it follows, that seeing every man must resolve he will never commit mortal sin, that he must never examine the grounds of it at all, for stare he should be moved to doubt: or if he do, he must resolve that no motives, be they never so strong, shall move him to doubt, but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himself in affirm belief of your religion. Doth not it appear by these words, that he must have no such resolution as he reprehends in us, but must be ready to doubt, or to leave his, and all Christian Religion? [And Pag. 326. N. 4.] he endeavours to prove, that Faith cannot be absolutely certain, because if it were so, any least doubting would destroy it; which shows, 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 resolve never to doubt, though per jmpossible an Apostle, or Angel should move us thereto, (as we have heard out of S. Paul) and yet the Authority of an Apostle, or persuasion of an Angel should in all reason be preferred before Faith, if it be only probable. 24. This inconstancy in Religion appears further by what he confesses of himself (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 have done my true endeavour to find it true, and am still willing to do so, but the more I seek, the further I am from finding etc. Behold, how after so long time, so much deliberation, so many changes of Religion, even after the writing of his Book, he is still willing to find and embrace a Religion different and contrary to that which he professed. Also (P. 184. N. 90.) he saith: Show us any way, and do not say but prove it to have come frrm Christ and his Apostles down to us, and we are ready to followed. Neither do we expect Demonstration hereof, but such reasons as may make this more probable than the contrary. Agreeable to this is his professing, (Preface N. 2.) that he had a travellers 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 Heaven which for the present seemed to him the most probable. A poor comfort and miserable faith, only probable, and of no longer continuance than for the time present! I willingly omit, that his deeds were agreeable to his words, changing, first from Protestants to Catholic, then from Catholic to Protestant, and about again to Catholic, till at last he became neither Precisian, nor Subscriber to the (39 Articles,) nor confessed Socinian, nor any thing unless that mhich S. Bernard saith of Abailardus, (Ep: 193.) Homo sibi dissimilis est, totus ambiguus. He is a man who disagrees even from himself, wholly compounded of doubts. I willingly leave out his middle words, Intus Herodes, for is joannes; inwatdly a Herode outwardly a john. If the Apostles be to be believed only in that which they delivered constantly as a certain divine truth, as he teaches (Pag. 144. N. 31.) surely this man, and his fellow Socinians, ought not to be believed in any thing, seeing according to their doctrine that faith is fallible, and but probable, they neither are, nor can be constant in any point they deliver: and so we cannot say so much of them as of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt: 23.2.) whatsoever they shall say unto you, do, but according to their works, do not: but, do neither what they shall say, nor according to their works. And here I beseech, and even beg of the Reader, if he have any care to save his soul, that he will consider how far the faith of this man, and his Associates, is from true Christian Faith, of which we have heard S. Paul saying: Although we, or an Angel from Heaven evangelise to you beside that which we have evangelized, be he an Anathema. 25. But this is not all that strongly offers itself in this point. For, not only his Faith cannot afford any rest or satisfaction, whereby a man may cease from further inquiry, but leaves him with a strict obligation to be incessantly examining his Religion, and seeking whether he can find some more probable, and better grounded. This sequel seems clear. Because the true Faith and Religion being absolutely necessary to salvation, charity towards ones self obliges every man, to seek the safer way, and the most certain Religion. And seeing he is not certain, that the Religion, or way to Heaven which for the present seems to him most probable (as we have heard him speak) is indeed the right way; what remains, but that men are obliged to be continually busied, and perplexed in the search of the true Faith necessary to salvation? This my inference seems to be acknowledged by him. For beside what hath been already cited, he says of himself, P. 278. N. 61.] If I did not put away idleness, and prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottom all my opinions of divine matters, being prepared in mind to fellow God, and God only, which way scever he shall lead me; if I did not hope, that I either do, or endeavour to d●e these things, certainly I should have little hope of obtaining salvation. Lo here little hope of salvation, unless a man be still examining to the bottom his opinions, and be prepared in mind to follow, etc. But in Vain it is to seek that rest, which will never be found, except in a Faith, and Religion, acknowledged to be absolutely certain and infallible, which alone can put an end to all further inquiry. Finally, [Pag. 376. N. 57] he saith: This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation, and I am verily persuaded that I have chosen wisely. Ponder, verily persuaded: And were not you verily persuaded in those your changes which you acknowledge [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 persuaded that you did choose wisely? Yea you expressly tell us in the same [Pag. 303.] that, of a moderate Protestant you turned a Papist, and that, the day that you did so, you were convicted in conscience that, your yesterday opinion (that is, Protestantisme) was an error. By all which appears, how inconstant you were, and must be in matters of Faith and Religion, till you acknowledge an infallible Faith, taken from an infallible living Guide, which is Gods true Church. 26. From this liberty of Belief, what can follow but liberty of life? Seeing his belief of Heaven and Hell, is but an opinion concerning things of an other world; whereas worldly pleasures are in present possession, and certain. If the absolute certainty wherewith all Christians hitherto have believed their Faith to abound, hath not been able to stop the course of men's licentiousness; what can we now expect, but that they who before did run, will now fly after the Idols of whatsoever may appear to their souls or bodies, objects of profit, or delight? (Pag. 326. N. 4.) he teaches, that, if faith be infallible, no Christian could commit any deliberate sin, yea and must be perfect in Charity; because Faith is the victory which overcomes the world, and Charity is the effect of Faith. If this be so, we may say on thecontrary side, that, if faith be weak, or only probable, what victory, what perfection in Charity can be hoped from it? But let us now come to some other kind of Argument. 27. Hitherto Christians have believed, that true Christian Faith is a Theological virtue, that is, it hath for its Formal object and Motive God, as he is infinitely Wise, and True; as Hope respects Him, as infinitely Powerful; and Charity, as infinitely Good. But the Faith of these men cannot be a Theological virtue: Therefore their faith is no true Christian Faith. The Minor cannot be denied in the grounds of this man. For, although they will pretend to believe the Articles of Christian Religion, because God hath revealed them; yet the Arguments of Credibility, or humane testimonies are the only formal object or Motive of this Assent, God hath revealed the mysteries of Christian Religion. They are, I say, Premises from which the said 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 Catholic Divines teach) so that the infallible Divine Revelation comes to be only a material object, believed for another fallible Motive, or Formal Object, infinitely beneath the Testimony of God, which alone is able to constitute a Theological virtue. Thus he plainly saith (Pag: 36. N. 8.) God desires only that we believe the Conclusion as much as the Premises deserve, that the strength of our faith be equal or proportionable to the credibility of the Motives to it. and most expressly 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 certain, and from an Hypothesis, whereof we can have but a moral certainty, we cannot possibly by natural means be more certain of it then of the weaker of the Premises. You see he holds the Assent of Faith to be a Conclusion, not proportioned to Divine Revelation, which is most infallible and strong, but measured by the weaker of the Premises, grounded upon humane inducements, which cannot give Species or nature and essence to a Theological virtue: and so his probable Faith, is no more than an humane Opinion. For, even as he who concludeth out of Mathematical Principles known only probably, hath not knowledge but opinion; so he that believes out of Principles not certain, a Revelation of its nature certain, hath not certain knowledge, but only opinion. And therefore his saying (Pag: 35. N. 7.) that he conveyves Faith to be an assent to Divine Revelations upon the authoty of the Renealer, will in no wise free him from the just imputation of turning Divine Faith into Opinion; since his assent to Divine Revelation is grounded, and measured, and receives its essence, from testimonies and Principles only probable and humane, and not from the Divine Revelation, without which, even Dr. Potter (Pag. 143.) expressly says: Faith is but Opinion, or persuasion, or at the most, an acquired humane belief. And it is to be observed, that the Doctor speaks expressly of the Authority of the Church, which he saith can beget only an Opinion, and yet Chillingworth resolves our belief of the Scripture into the Tradition and teaching of the Church, and therefore his belief of the Scripture cannot pass the degree of Opinion, or humane belief. 28. Children are taught in their Catechisms, that, Faith, Hope, and Charity are virtues, and all Divines agree that Faith is a virtue infused, and seeing it resides in the understanding, it must be a Virtue of the understanding, which of its nature cannot produce any but true acts, because virtue, out of S. Austin, Lib 2. de Libero arbitrio, is a quality which by no man is used ill. And, virtue, as Divines teach together with Aristotle, disposes the Power to that which is best. Wherefore the virtue of the will disposeth it unto Good, which is the wils good, and an intellectual virtue must dispose the understanding to that which is True, which is the intellective Powers greatest Good. Since therefore Faith is of its own essence an intellectual virtue, it must have an intrinsical reference and tye unto true Acts, and an incapacity and repugnance unto false ones and errors. 29. Besides; Faith is the first Power of supernatural Being, and ought not to be inferior to Habitus Principiorum in our natural Being, which Habits cannot incline to any false assent. And whence comes it that the Habit of Faith for producing an Act, requires Gods special help, which cannot move unto falsehood, but that such a Habit is determinated to Truth? Or how is it given us as a fit, sufficient, and secure means, whereby to captivated our understanding with great confidence to the obedience of Faith, and of God, if it be not determined to truth, without all danger of error? Will he deny that it exceeds God's Power to produce such a Habit, or to concur with our understanding to such an Act, as shallbe incapable of error? Or what imaginable reason can there be, to deny that Faith is such, in which concur, Divine Revelation; a Pious Affection, and command of the will; and the special Grace of the Holy Ghost? What? A supernatural End of eternal Happiness; a supernatural Habit; a supernatural Grace; a supernatural Act; an infinite Authority or formal Object; and all to end in mere weak Probabilities? Doth water rise as high as the source from which it flows, and shall not all these divine and supernatural fountains, raise us higher than Opinion; Good Christians can correct natural Reason, in points which to Philosophers seemed evident truths and Principles, as in the Creation, against that Axiom (Ex nihilo nihil fit, of nothing nothing is made) In the Resurrection, against; (From privation there is not admitted a returning back to the former Being;) In the incarnation, against (A substance is that which exists by itself; and yet our Saviour's sacred Humanity exists in the Eternal Word) in the Mystery of the B. Trinity, against, (Those things which are the same with a third, are the same amongst themselves; and, not to allege more particulars, all miracles wrought by our Saviour above the strength of all natural causes, seemed in humane reason, to imply a contradiction, or impossibility; and whatsoever is believed above Reason, would seem false and against it, if we did not correct Reason by Faith; which could not be done, unless we did judge the light of Faith, to be more certain, than the light of Reason, or the Principles thereof. And this, Chilling: must either grant, and so yield faith to be infallible; or else must be content to acknowledge a plain contradiction to himself. This appears by these words, [Pag. 376. N. 56.] Propose me any thing out of this book, (the Bible) and require whether I believe it or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to humane reason, I will subscribe it with hand and hart, as knowing, no demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is true. And in the Conclusion of his Book (§ And whereas) he professeth that he will not believe any thing contrary to any Verity revealed in the Word of God, though never so improhable or incomprehensible to Natural Reason. For if his Faith be, to his understanding, only probable, how can he in prudence prefer it before the contrary thereof, which to his understanding seems evident, and certain? Or how can an assent, which I judge to be only probable, enable me to believe that which I judge to be evidently improbable? And it is in vain for him to tell us of the certainty of God's Revelation, since we do not compare Natural Reason with God's Revelation, but with those Motives, for which we believe the divine Revelation; which being to him only probable, and esteemed such, and no more, must yield to appearance of certainty of the contrary: and therefore he must either confess that he contradicts himself, or yield that Faith is infallible and more certain than natural reason. 30. To speak truth, if we consider well, this Socinian Faith, can have no other use or effect, except only to damn men by contenting themselves with a faith of probability, when they may, and aught to attain a certainty. He himself, [Pag. 36. N. 9] doubts not but 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 those that believe and live according to their faith, he gives by degree the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how, they know not) what, they did but believe: And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospel of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himself with their ears, which looked upon it, and whose hands handled the word of life. Now if some men may arrive to so absolute an assurance; why may not others: why must not all? Are not all bound to live according to their Faith, and to observe the laws of charity, and obedience, which doing, you say, they shall arrive to a full and resolute assurance, even above that which you call faith? You say (Pag. 227. N. 61.) God's assistance is always 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 given, and will abide with those that love God and keep his Commandments. Yea since true Faith is always the Gift of God, raising us up by Grace above the strength of nature: And that every one is obliged ro have true Christian Faith, it is consequent, that de facto all are bound to believe with a Faith, produced by Grace, above the forces of nature, and consequently infallibly certain. For here that excellent saying of S. Leo (Serm. 16. de Pass. Domini) hath place: justè Deus instat praecepto, quia praecurrit auxilio. He may well exact of us, an infallible Act of Faith, seeing he gives us sufficient Grace to perform what he exacts. And (Pag. 34. N, 6.) you say, The essential character of Charity is to judge and hope the best, by which you are obliged to judge and hope (unless the contrary be manifest) that every one lives according to his belief, by observing the Commandments; and so in fact is arrived to a certain and infallible Faith. Since therefore you grant, that the faith of those who live according to their Belief, is not to be regulated by the Laws of Logic, and forms of Syllogisms; with what shadow of reason would you make men believe, that the Faith of all Christians, necessary to salvation, which is a special infused Gift of God, must be subject to such Rules; as if it were a mere Conclusion, following only the weaker of the Premises, and not measured by the special Grace and Motion of the Holy Ghost, above all Logic. Thus all your Objections against the infallible Faith of Christians, must be answered by yourself, as false and sophistical, and consequently all Christians may, and aught in despite of such paralogismes, to assert and believe the necessity of an infallible Faith. And, as I said, the contrary doctrine can serve only to delude, and damn those unhappy souls, who will be harkninge to such noveltyes; I say, to damn souls, even though it were falsely supposed, that his doctrine were true. For, all Christians, beside this man and such as he, sirmely believing, Christian Faith necessary to salvation to be infallibly true, and he acknowledging all points of Christian Faith to be but probable, (and surely he will not be so shameless as to say, he believes this particular fancy, wherein he disagrees both from Catholics and Protestants, to be more certain than all other Articles of Faith) it cannot be denied, but that men are bound to believe with an infallible Assent; because, as I sayda in matters absolutely necessary to salvation, we are bound by the Law of God, and Charity to ourselves, to embrace the safer way by means of an infallible Faith, which he confesses may be obtained, by prayer, and obedience to God's commandments. And so upon one account or other, all are obliged under pain of damnation, to believe with an infallible Faith. 31. As it is very true, that there is no greater, nor more foolish sin, than the sin of Desperation, irrevocably bringing damnation, which might have been avoided by Hope, for which Gods Grace is never wanting, if we cooperate; so we may say, that this fallible Faith infallibly dispatches men to Hell; which mischief all may avoid by endeavouring to raise their faith to certainty, as he confesses they may do, by obeying and praying, which endeavours 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 fellows may be applied these words of the Prophet Ezechiel, (C. 18. V 31.32) Why will ye die; return and live. Which that they may do either with more ease, or become inexcusable, if they do it not; we will more and more confute that Ground, on which he doth in a manner wholly rely; 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, ask of him, whether he mean, that the Conclusion doth so follow the weaker of the Premises, that it receives no strength or perfection from the fellowship of a better Premise than itself is; If he answer, that it receives no strength; then one will infer, that one Premise containing the Testimony, or Revelation of God, an other the testimony of men, could produce no stronger conclusion, than if both Premises did contain only the testimony of men; and so he must confess, that de facto he believes the Articles of Christian Faith, no more than if by probable arguments, they were proved to be testified by men alone. If he answer, that the stronger Premise, may elevate the weaker, to produce a Conclusion stronger than itself, he should not have spoken so rawly as if one strong and another weaker premise had no greater influence into the Conclusion, than if both the premises were weak. 33. But to omit this; he should have declared, whether a conclusion, deduced from one certain and another probable premise, although precisely and formally and Reduplicative 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 understanding to an infallible Act of Faith, not by itself, but by applying the Divine Revelation, which growing by that means and application, to be the immediate and formal Object of our understanding may move it to an Assent proportionable to such an Object and Authority, that is, absolutely certain and infallible; as he who applies fire to a combustible subject, is occasion that heat is produced by the fire immediately applied, and not by him who applied it; or as a Preacher, or Pastor, whose testimonies are humane and fallible, when they declare to their hearers, or subjects, that some Truth is witnessed by God's word, are occasion that those people may produce a true infallible Act of Faith, depending immediately upon Divine Revelation applied by the said means. This if he had declared, (as he should have done not to deceive his Reader) his main argument, that the conclusion follows the weaker premise, had been answered, and confuted by himself. 34. And this same ground and consideration, wholly evacuates the examples which he allegeth (pag. 36. N, 8.) That a man cannot go or stand strongly, if either of his legs be weak. That a building cannot be stable, if any one of the necessary pillars thereof be infirm 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 confidence of the truth of the Revelation, cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour. For in our Case, humane testimonies are not the legs on which Faith stands: nor the pillars which uphold it; nor the message or messenger for which we believe; but it is only the Divine Revelation on which the Act of Faith relies, and from which it receiveth 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 understanding, Divine Revelation when God doth not reveal; Therefore I cannot upon humane testimony, representing or applying Divine Revelation, exercise an infallible Act of Faith. I answer: it is one thing, whether by a reflex Act I am absolutely certain, 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 have said nothing, neither makes it to our present purpose. Of the latter, I affirm that when indeed humane testimony is true, and so, applies a divine revelation which really exists; in such case, I may believe by a true infallible Assent of Christian Faith. The reason of this seems clear, because although a truth which I know only by a probable assent, is not certain to me; yet in itself it is most immoveable and certain, in regard that while a thing is, it cannot but be for that time in which it is, and so it implies contradiction that, Divine revelation should not exist, when by a true judgement I affirm it to exist; which certain existence once supposed, it is able to tansfuse certainty and infallibility to that Act of which it alone, and not any precedent thing is the Formal Object and Motive; Neither will God be wanting to concur on the believers part, with his special Grace, necessary for producing a supernatural Act of Christian Faith. And so his argument, (ibidem) that a river will not rise higher than the fountain from whence it flows, turns against himself; and proves, that our Assent flowing from Divine and infallible causes, Will rise as high, as those fountains; to a supernatural infallible Assent. This is sufficient to show, how the probability of a Conclusion taken specificative doth not hinder, but that by means thereof, I may come afterward to an infalliblity in my Assent derived, not immediately from that Conclusion, but from the Divine Revelation: Whereby his chiefest Ground is overthrown, That it is universally impossible, to exercise an infallible Act of Faith, unless the existence of Divine Revelation, be certainly foreknown in one of the Premises. 36. But yet further; if we consider all the other Causes of Christian Faith, they do evince that it is certain and infallible, as I have touched before: For beside the object of infinite Authority on the believers part, God doth infuse the Habit of Faith: He gives a particular Actual Motion of Grace for exercising the Act thereof; He effectually moves the will by a Pious assection and Command, to determine the understanding to a firm assent of Faith, above the precedent Arguments of Credibility. If a better vnderstanding conceive the same Object, with more perfection than another of less capacity, what stint can we put to that vnderstanding, which is directed and strengthened by rays from the light quae illuminat omnem hominem? Which enlighteneth every man? 37. Alas! how perniciously foolish will men needs be towards their own perdition? All things euen by the instinct and strength of nature pass from an imperfect to a perfect state: from the outward senses to the inward, which can correct the errors of our outward, from which it took its first notions; from them to the understanding: and finally by probable Arguments is prepared to find out Demonstrations. And yet men will not understand how we may rise from arguments of Credibility, to a certainty in Faith, though assisted with Divine Grace. 38. To what hath been said for the infalliblity of Faith, I add this consideration. If Faith require not absolute certainty, it were sufficient to believe, that the authority of Scripture is only probable, or that it is on lie probable that God can neither deceive, nor be deceived. 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 follows the fallible and weaker Premise, what difference is there to believe that Scripture is fallible, or to affirm that we do but probably and fallibly believe that it is infallible, or the word of God. (in his Principles: or what imports it for attaining certainty, that God's Revelation is in itself infallible, if I do but favibly know, that he hath revealed any thing▪ And yet S. Paul (Heb: 6), grounds Christian Faith upon this, that it is impossible For God to lie: Therefore he did suppose that Christian Faith is infallible. 39 But what if 〈◊〉: himself pretend to believe, that Christian Faith is infallible? I do not say he believes 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 himself, or gather how the infallibility of Faith, is as it were the natural sense of Christians, since he who so much impugns it, cannot choose but make ashew of defending it. (Pag. 410.) he saith: For Arguments tending to prove an impossibility of all Divine, supernatural, jnfallible Faith and Religion, I assure myself, that if you were ten times more a spider than you are, you could suck no such poison from them. My hart, I am sure is innocent of any such intention; and the searcher of all hearts knows, that I had no other end in writing this Book, but to confirm to the uttermost of my ability the truth of the Divine and jnfallible Religion of our dear, lord and Saujour Christ jesus. If this be true, surely the Book which goes under his name, is supposititious or a changeling, telling us, that the Conclusion follows the weaker of the Premises, of which one is but probable, whereas now you hear him avouching, that Christian Faith and Religion is supernatural; Divine; 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 do believe the Gospel of Christ (as it is delivered in the un loubted Books of Canonical Scripture) as verily as that it is now day; that I see the light; that I am now writing: and I believe it upon this Motive, because I conceive it sufficiently, abundantly, superabundantly proved to be Divine Revelation. And yet in this, I do not depend upon any succession of men that have always believed it without any mixture of Error; nay I am fully persuaded there hath been no such succession, and yet do not find myself any way weakened in my faith by the want of it, but so fully assured of the truth of it, that though an Angel from Heaven should gainsay it or any part of it, I persuade myself that I should not be moved. 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 moved though an Angel from Heaven should gainsay it, or any part of it. For who would not sooner believe an Angel from Heaven, than the confessed fallible testimonies of men on earth? And therefore if he speak as he thinks, he must either acknowledge Christian 〈…〉 be infallible, (and so no authority gainsaying it can be by lived or else he cannot avoid a non sense in preferring 〈…〉 probability, before an Angel from Heaven. 40. Whatsoever his words, and Do●●●● be against the infallibility of Faith, I am sure that in deeds none doth bring better proof for it, than he, by pleading against it, with Reasons and Arguments, which may be so clearly answered, as that every one cannot but give sentence for the Possession of Divine infallible Faith, seeing no new Argument of worth or weight, is produced to impugn it 41 That I may not seem only to say, and not prove this, I must crave pardon, if in answering his Objections, I may perhaps seem long, and might justly be censured for tedious, unless my desire and intention were not only to answer, but by God's holy assistence to confute and retort his Arguments, and so prove the Truth: as also incidently to treat some material points, which will offer themselves, by occasion of his Objections, and for themselves should not have been omitted. And so I hope this length, will bring with it a fourfold commodity. This being done, Christian Faith will keep its Right to infallibility; without any other positive Reason to prove it (though I have brought divers, and many more might be alleged) and some who are said to cry up Chillingworths' Arguments, will, I hope, see how flat and low they will be found to lie, by being impartially considered, and duly examined. 42. His first and chiefest Objection, which only hath any show of dissiculty (namely, that, The Motives of Credibility being only probable, Faith itself cannot be certain) he took from Catholic Divines, but dissembled their Answers, and wanted humility to captivated his understanding unto the obedience of Faith, as they did, and all good Christians ought to do, though never so many difficultyes should offer themselves to the contrary. But this Objection I have answered at large, and turned it upon himself in several ways and occasions needless to be repeated: and therefore I come to his other Objection. 43. Object 2. pag. 326. N. 4. Every text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weak, 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: Every such text is a demonstrative refutation of this vain fancy, proving that Faith, even true and saving Faith, is not a thing consisting in such an indivisible point of perfection as you make it, but capable of augmentation and diminution: Every prayer to God to increase your Faith (or if you conceive such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your Faith) the Apostles praying to Christ to increase their Faith, is a convincing argument of the same conclusion. 44. Answer: Not to take notice of his improper speech of augmentation and diminution in Faith, which are appropriated to Quantity, as intention and remission are propertyes of Quality: the growd and supposition on which this whole objection goes, is manifestly untrue, namely, that we make Faith to be a thing consisting in an indivisible point of perfection, whereas all Catholic Divines teach that it hath degrees of perfection and intention, no less than Hope, and Charity, and that de facto it receives increase by every meritorious act, together with justifying Grace. The Holy Council of Trent (Sess. 6. C. 10.) gives this Title to that Chapter. Of the merease of justification already received etc. 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 prays; Give us, o Lord, increase of Faith, Hope, and Charity. You see we think it not derogatory from the perfection of our Faith (as you are pleased to speak) to pray for increase thereof. Who is ignorant, that in Qualities, We are to distinguish, between their essence (which consists as it were in an indivisible point) and degrees of intention, which may be increased within the compass of the same Essence; otherwise it were not intention, but the production of another Species or Essence, as we experience in heat, light, and other such qualities; and know in scientifical Demonstrations; and believe in Hope, and Charity. Is not the same truth known with more evidence (and consequently with more certainty, according to his grounds) by a perspicatious understanding, than by one more dull? Which argues that there are degrees in certainty. What is more known, than that Axiom of Aristotle, Propter quod unumquodque tale, illud & magis tale; That, for which every thing is such is itself much more such? Chilling: himself (Pag. 377. N. 59) Saith, we must be surer of the proof, then of the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof. If then the conclusion be certain by virtue of the Proof, or Premises, these must be more certain; which supposes different degrees of perfection, even in certain and infallible acts of our understanding; and then why not in Faith, though it be certain and infallible? And his objection, that according to us, all true Faith must be most certain, and the most perfect that is, cannot be more than most certain, hath no more strength than it receives from ignorance. For, when Faith is said to be most certain the comparison goes not between different degrees of gradual perfection in Faith itself, but between Faith, and natural knowledge: Or else Faith is said to be most certain for its essence; because with every degree of true Faith, we must believe articles revealed, with an assent super omnia, above all, essentially excluding all doubt, or descent from such articles; as Hope relies Upon God super omnia, above all, and essentially refuses to admit any voluntary act of desperation; and Charity essentially love's God above all things appretiatine, choosing to lose all things, rather than to offend God, and therefore effectually moving us not to consent unto any deadly sin. In these essential perfections there is an indivisibility, and a most or greatest perfection, which being taken away, the Virtue is destroyed; but it passeth not so in Gradual perfections of Faith, Hope, Charity, and other Virtues, either infused, or acquired. 45. What knowledge is so certain, evident, and perfect, as the Beatifical Vision? which may truly be called most perfect: but how? In respect of other knowledge, terminated only to created Objects: but in respect to itself, in order to Gradual perfection, it consists not in an indivisible point, because one Angel, or Saint beholds God intuitiuè, with more perfection, than another. Thus even your probable Faith, must essentially exclude all Doubt. Taken in the most proper sense, that is, not as it signify formidinem oppositi, some fear lest 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 positive assent to one part; and in this essential notion of excluding all such Doubt, all probable judgements must agree, and yet you will not deny but there are different Gradual degrees in probable assents, and in particular in your probable Faith, which you prove 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 convince you by your own assertions. [Pag. 36. N. 9] you say; The spirit of God, being implored by devout and humble prayers, and sincere obedience, may and will by degrees advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence, beyend their certainty of evidence. And; To those that believe, and live accordingly to their faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how, they know not) what they did but believe; And be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospel of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himself with their ears, which saw it with their eyes, which looked upon it, and whose hands handled the Word of life. Hear you speak of certain persons, arriving 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 devout and humble prayers and sincere obedience; and that the same man might by degrees be advanced above himself; as also that they might pray for such increase. Therefore there are degrees in certainty, for attaining of which one may pray, as in your objection you allege the Apostles prying to Christ to increase their Faith: which is directly for us against yourself. 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 mere faith, but somewhat more: an assent containing faith, but superadding to it. Therefore 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 believe with more certainty than an other Surely you will be content that S. Paul enter into the number of those who living as they believe, attain an absolute certainty, and yet he made progress in charity, as himself witnesseth [1. Tim: 4. V 6.7.8.] I am even now to be sacrificed, and the time of my resolution is at and. I have fought a good fight, I have consummate my course; I have kept the Faith. Concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown 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 speaks of a crown due for his Faith, and good works or Charity, without exception of any time wherein his Faith was fallible, which indeed was always most certain and infallible, by the particular appearing of our Saviour to him, and most express revelation: which certainty had been no favour, but a great harm, if it had deprived him of all increase in charity, notwithstanding his continual exercise of heroical good works, and a death glorious by martyrdom, the highest pitch of Charity and perfection; and yet he said 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 lived as they believed, and were eminent in Prayer, Obedience and all sanctity. 47. But this is not all that may be alleged against you, out of your own doctrine, [Pag. 330. N. 8.] You say: that we are to believe the Religion of Christ, we are and may be infallibly certain; and this you endeavour to prove by some arguments which you style certain, and then conclude from all these premises, this conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain that we are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion. Now it cannot be denied, but that in this assent, (It is infallibly certain that we are firmily to believe the truth of Christian Religion,) there may be degrees of certainty or perfection, both in different persons at the same time, and in the same person at different times, as he may more and more ponder the Reasons which prove the truth of Christian Religion above all other; and consequently that men may pray for the conservation and increase of that infallible assent, from which we see divers do fall, and others would do so without God's special Grace: for which therefore we may and aught to pray. (Here by a parenthesis, it may be asked, what you mean in saying: that we are to believe the Christian Religion we are and may be certain, as if any were actually certain, and yet could not be certain. Ab esse ad posse surely is a known good argument. It had been better said, we may be, and are certain) Men have a certain assent that there is a God, and yet some believe this certainty with more perfection than others, an all may pray God to increase it, since we see so many turn Atheists. Lastly this very Objection, (wherein you measure the perfection of charity by the perfection of Faith, and thence infer, that, if Faith be perfect and infallible, Charity must be perfect, and that no man could possibly make any progress in it) I retort upon yourself. For, seeing charity may be increased by prayer and obedience, while we live upon earth, according to that in the Apocalypse [21. V 11.] He who is just, let him be justified yet: Faith also must be capable of greater intention and increase in all sorts of persons, even in those who you say by degrees may arrive to a certainty in belief. Therefore still we infer from your own tenets, that absolute certainty consists not in an indivisible poyat, but may be increased, and persited. 48. By what hath been said, I conceive your objection to be not only sufficiently answered, but also confuted, and demonstrated to make against yourself. Yet, by way of supererogation, I must add two considerations. First; The Apostles praying to Christ to increase their Faith, Domine adauge nobis Fidem. [Luc. 17.5.] Lord, increase faith in us, makes nothing to the purpose, of proving any thing at all touching Faith necessary to salvation; because that prayer of the Apostles did concern 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 ask why they could not cast out the devil, our Saujour answered: Propter incrednatatem Vestram, By reason of your incredulity; and yet it were impious to think, that the Apostles under such a Master, were ignorant of Articles necessary to salvation in those times, and therefore their want was only of Faith required to work miracles: and accordingly our Saviour in both those Euangeitsts took that occasion to speak of the faith of miracles, whereby they would be able to remove mountains: Therefore this your proof, 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 believe, help my unbelief, which concerns only faith of miracles, of delivering that man's son from a deaf and dumb devil. [Marc: 9.23.] Woe be to Protestants if faith of working miracles, be necessary to Salvation! In the mean time, you were wise enough not to set down the particular places of Scripture, which, you say, speak of a weak, strongh; little, great faith &c: lest upon examination, they might have been found subject to this, or some such clear exception. 49. My second consideration is: that, whereas he saith: (Every Text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weak, or of any that were strong in faith; of any that were of little, or any that were of great faith: Every such Text is a demonstrative refutation of this vain fancy) all this proves nothing at all, unless when mention is made of a weak and little faith, he had proved, such a weak faith to be sufficient for Salvation; or that such a faith, though strong in itself, yet be not called weak in comparison of a stronger; as Divines teach, Faith to be obscure compared with some more evident natural, or supernatural knowledge, though itself be a great light, according to that; To a candle shining in a dark place [2. Pet: 1.19.] and all true Acts of the understanding are lights. Our Saviour said: [Marc. 10.18.] None is good but one, God; because all created Goodness, though in itself it be truly good, yet compared to God, is as if it were not. In this comparative way, some may be said to be weak in supernatural Hope, or Charity, and yet every least degree of those virtues is in itself very great and strong, as I explicated above. I suppose you will not affirm every weak kind of faith to be sufficient for salvation; since [Pag. 37. N. 9] you say: God will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith, if it be living and effectual unto true obedience; which supposes, that some faith may be so weak, that it will not be accepted; and therefore when the Scripture mentioneth a weak faith, you must prove that such a faith is sufficient to salvation; or if it be sufficient, you must then show, that by a weak faith is understood a faith only probable and fallible in itself, 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 salvation. And yet we must take such proofs as these for demonstrative refutations and convincing arguments; for so you style these your reasons. 50. No better than these, is your Argument [Pag. 37. N. 9] where you say: He commands us to receive them, who are weak in faith, and thereby declares that he receives them. I know not what command of our Saviour you mean, unless it be that of which S. Pavia speaks (Rom. 14.1.) Insirmum in side assumite, non in disceptationibus cogitationum: Take to you the infirm in faith, not in disputations of cogitations. Which Protestants translate, Him that is weak in faith, receive you, but not in doubtful disputations: And in the margin; or, not to judge his doubtful thoughts: And in the argument before this Chapter: men may not contemn nor condemn one an other for things indifferent. All which show, that the Apostle speaks not of Christian Faith, necessary to salvation, which cannot be esteemed a thing indifferent, but of some other matter, as indeed he doth; namely, of a doubt amongst Christians at that time, about eating certain meats, once forbidden to the jews, which some made a scruple to do, others not; and so weakness in faith signify only a scruple, or tenderness of conscience, for this particular case; and therefore the Apostle in the next verse mentions the contrary persuasion of others: One believeth that he may eat 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 believed by all Christians? Or how doth this prove, that, Faith common to all Christians, is sufficient to salvation, though it be but probable, and not certain? I beseech you consider what you say. In the matter of which the Apostle speaks, the comparison was not, between a strong and weak faith, or belief of the same thing, as our case goes, but the question was of contrary persuasions, one part judging that to be lawful, which the other held to be unlawful. And therefore if you will have your Objection rightly applied, or not to be clearly impertinent, a man weak in Faith must be he, who believes Christian Faith not to be true, nor the practice of it lawful: And do you believe such a weak Faith to be sufficient to salvation? or that the Apostle will have us receive them who are weak in Faith in that sense, that is, who believe errors contrary to Christian Faith? Your passing from Faith necessary to salvation, to Faith of Miracles, was an inpertinency: but this your substituting to Christian Faith, errors contrary to it, hath too much of the Impious. 51. Object: 3. (Pag. 326. N. 4.) You go forward in impugning the infallibility of Faith, in this manner: If this doctrine were true: then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty, it will follow, that every least doubting in any matter of Faith, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolu tely destructive, so long as it lasts, of all true and saving Faith: which you are so far from granting, that you make it no sin at all; but only an occasion of merit. 52. Answer: First, Yourself must answer this objection: In those, whom, (Pag. 36. N. 9) you say God's spirit, may, and will advance beyond the certainty of evidence to the spirit of obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know what they did not believe: And to be as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospel of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himself with their ears etc. 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 believe (as you Pag. 330. N. 8. pretend to do) that it is infallibly Certain, that we are firmety to believe the truth of Christian Religion: In those who have an absolute Certainty of this Thesis, All which God reveals for truth, is true, which (Pag. 36. N. 8.) You say is a proposition evidently demonstrable, or rather evident of itself: In those who denying Christian Faith to be certain, yet pretend to be certain that it is probable, as you and your fellow Socinians do: In all these Certainties, I say, you must answer, what you object against us. For, seeing as you say, not any the least doubting can consist with Certainty, it will follow, that every least doubting in the rehearsed truths (all which concern matter of Faith) though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, of the belief of the Gospel; and particularly of that part, of which the Apostles were eye-witnesses; of the certainty that it is infallibly certain that we are firmity to believe the truth of Christian Religion; of the assent to this truth, All which God reveals for truth, is true (which is a most fundamental article of Faith▪) of certainty, that Christian Religion is probable: all which I conceive you will be far from granting, seeing that even according to the Doctrine of Socinians, there can be no actual sins merely involuntary. 53. But this is not all. It must follow by your argument, that every Doubt taken properly, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, even of the Probability of Christian Faith, which being destroyed, there remains no belief at all (either certain, or probable) of Christian Religion. I said, every doubt taken properly, which is, when our understanding finding not sufficient reason to believe 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 determinately to one part, though not without fear that the contrary is true. For, it is clear, that such a doubt which abstracts from a positive assent to either part, is absolutely incompossible with a probable persuasion, which positively determines to one side, (it being a manifest contradiction, for the same act to abstract from both parts, and yet to determine us to one) and so every such Doubt, must be, as you said against us, a Deadly sin. But why do I seek after other instances, than this most obvious and common to all Christians, even to Socinians? You pretend to believe that Christian Religion is true, and consequently cannot judge, at the same time, that it is false: Therefore this judgement, Christian Religion is false, though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, of all faith where by you believe Christian Religion to be true. And so in vain you said, no lest Doubt could consist with the contrary certainty, as if your objection did touch only our infallibility of Faith, whereas it overthrows even your belief that Christian Faith is true. I do therefore 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 destructive of infallible Faith, because any the least Doubting cannot consist with certainty: I answer: If he who doubts, conceive his doubt to be against that which he believes by Faith, and yet doth not resist, such a doubt is voluntary, and destroys true Faith, but makes nothing for your purpose, who speak of a doubt resisted, and not voluntary. If he resist, than he rejects the Doubt, and so doubts not, but retains his former undoubted assent, with advantage of a new victory against the temptation to doubt; and it is nonsense, or implicatio in adjecto, to talk of doubting, and resisting, at the same tyme. For if it be resisted, it is not accepted, nor is it a doubtful assent, or secunda operatio intellectus, which affirms or denies by way of judgement, but is a mere apprehensio, or prima operatio of our understanding, representing to our mind a doubt, which by resistance is stopped from passing to a judgement; as when David said [Psalm. 52.1.] The foolish man said 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 judgement, or affirmation that it was so: And Aristotle teaches, that men may perhaps think they believe express contradictions, when indeed they only apprehend them without any assent, or belief. How easy then is it to conceive, that a doubt offered, but resisted, neither is, nor can be destructive of infallible Faith, seeing 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 believe contradictions, not understood to be such, as daily 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 understanding) and so it is no way destructive of Faith. 55. I need not say any more for confutation of this Objection. Yet I deem not this an unprofitable Demand; upon what ground you say, Every least doubting in any matter of Faith (if it be infallible) though resisted and involuntary, is a damnable sin, absolutely destructive, so long as it lasts, of true and saving Faith? For, one act formally excludes only that which is naturally opposite to it; and therefore why should One involuntary and inculpable Act be destructive of all saving Faith? If the Doubt be voluntary and culpable, it destroys, I grant, all true Faith, both Habitual, and actual: though even in this case of sinful error you must say the contrary, and so overthrew your own argument: you, I say, who [Pag. 368. N. 49.] teach, that a voluntary and sinful error against one Article of Faith may stand with true Faith, and belief of other Points, and the contrary doctrine you term a vain and groundless fancy; and therefore in your Principles one may believe with absolute certainty some Points, (V. G. that there is a God, or that Christian Religion is probable, which you pretend to believe with certainty; or the other examples which I specifyd above out of your own doctrine) and yet doubt of evidency in some other point of Faith; and so you must grant, that every involuntary doubt is not destructive of all infallible and certain Faith, as you assumed in your Objection, which now yourself must answer. 56. Beside, you speak very confusedly in affirming, that every least doubting, though resisted, would be destructive so long as it lasteth, of all true and saving Faith, without declaring, whether you speak of Habitual or actual Faith, or of both. Acts, if we speak naturally, and Philosophically, do not directly and immediately destroy the contrary Habit, and therefore there is no reason why an involuntary doubt, should destroy the Habit of Faith. But you will say; At least every Doubt is destructive of the Act of Faith. because we cannot at the same time doubt of that thing which we believe with Certainty, whether such a doubt be voluntary, or involuntary. I Answer: I have said already, that an involuntary doubt, or a doubt resisted, is not received in our understanding, and therefore cannot exclude the contrary certain Act of Faith. Yet if for declaring the matter, we will make an impossile supposition, that an error involuntary, and consequently no sin, is received in our understanding, I say, in that case it will not destroy the act of Divine Faith, morally; but only physically (by a natural in compossibility, or incompatibility in the same subject, or vnderstanding) it hinders the exercise thereof; which may happen, not only by such a doubt as we speak of, but also by other lawful occasions, as sleep, serious application to some business requiring a perfect attention, or by a resolution not to exercise an Act of Faith in some circumstances, wherein one knows he is not obliged thereto; and yet these things, and the like, which for the time exclude an Act of faith, must according to your Objection, be damnable sins, as destructive of all both infallible and probable Faith, because they are incompatible with the actual exercise of any either certain, or only probable Assent. In how many respects is your Objection proved to be weak, and contradictory to yourself? 57 Object: 4. In the same Pag. 326. N. 4. you say: The same is invincibly confirmed by every deliberate sin that any Christian commits; by any progress in charity that he makes. For, seeing as S. john assures us, our faith is the victory which overcomes the world, certainly if the faith of all true believers were perfect, (and if true faith be canable of no imperfection, if all faith be a knowledge most certain and infallible, all faith must be perfect; for, the most imperfect that is, according to your doctrine, if it be true, must be most certain, and sure the most perfect that is, cannot be more than most certain) then certainly their victory over the world, and therefore over the flesh, and therefore over sin, must of necessity be perfect; and so it should be impossible for any true believer to commit any deliberate sin; and therefore he that commits any sin, must not think himself a true believer. Besides, seeing 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 equal: and from thence it would follow avoidable, that whosoever finds in himself any true faith, must presently persuade himself 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 have had the patience to set down your Objection at large, (though the full substance thereof might have been expressed in very few words) notwithstanding your repetitions, inferences, and involutions, which I will endeavour to unfold by degrees, and lay open the weakness of your Argument, in these following reflections. 〈◊〉, In conformity to your own Argument, you must grant, that your victory over the world, the flesh, and sin, as also your Charity, cannot be perfect, because your faith being acknowledged to be only probable, is supposed by yourself to be imperfect, since you say, we must hold that our faith is perfect, because we believe it to be certain. 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 own Argument be good? And here you put me upon a necessity to add a new Argument for the infallibility of Faith, to all the reasons alleged above. For, seeing men may by God's assistance overcome the world, and be perfect in Charity, both which according to you, are measured by Faith, it follows that they may have perfect faith; and if you can say, as you do; If the cause were perfect, the effect would be perfect, much more I may say; if the cause be imperfect, the effect (which never 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 therefore, seeing the effect of victory, and Charity in Christians, may be, and in many de facto is perfect, it follows clearly, that they have not a mere probable, but an infallible perfect faith. 59 Secondly, your Objection still goes upon that ground, that there are no Degrees of perfection in Faith; which I have demonstrated to be evidently 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 convince the understanding, but that it may be resisted, and the contrary believed: And therefore you cannot infer upon equality of faith in all true Believers, that our victory of the world must be equally perfect in all. 60. Thirdly, if you had cited the testimony of S. john as you ought, the weakness and impertinency of your Argument would have clearly appeared. His words are; [1. joan: 5. V 3.4.5.] This is the Charity of God, that ye keep his commandments, and his commandments are not heavy. Because all that is borne of God, overcomes the world: and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world, but he that believes that jesus is the son of God? Where it is clear, that S. john speaks of faith with Charity, which is called by Divines Fides formata, faith informed with Charity, by which we keep the commamdements, as he saith [V. 3.] This is the Charity of God, that ye keep his commandments. And [V. 4.] All that is borne of God, overcomes the world: Now we are borne or regenerated to a new life, or Being, by justifying Grace, and the Gifts which are given with it, of Faith, Hope, and Charity; and therefore he adds; This is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith, that is, such a faith as the Regenerate, or they who receive a new life, have, or a living faith working by Charity. 61. Fourthly, according to this true sense, your Objection is wholly impertinent, as speaking of a naked faith taken alone as it goes before Charity; as like wise it doth not prove that such a naked faith doth necessarily bring with it Charity, and so is the victory over the world. For, what consequence is it to say? Faith as informed with Charity, cannot be without Charity, or is the victory over the world. Therefore Faith taken by itself, and considered only according to its own nature and essence, and abstracting from Charity, is inseparable from Charity, and the victory over the world. An Argument, no better than this: The Body with the soul, lives and makes a man: Therefore the Body of itself life's and makes a man; which is directly against S. james [C. 2. V 26.] saying: Even as the body without the spirit, is dead; so also faith without works, is dead. This appears also by what S. john saith (V. 5.) Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that jesus is the son of God? Which must be understood of him who so believes in our Saviour, as that he love's him, and keeps his commandments. For, merely to believe Christ is the son of God, is but that Faith, which Protestants call Historical, and unanimously teach that it doth not justify, nor is inseparable from Charity, nor is the victory over the world. And therefore interpreters understand this Text of a living Faith, or joined with Charity. And so this place makes against you, and proves that Faith of itself (though never so infallible) is not the victory over the world. But the weakness of this man's Socinian probable Faith forces him to reel from faith to faith; From Historical, to Faith of working Miracles; From justifying faith to Historical; From both to a No-faith, that is, to a faith so weak, that by it a man may believe Christian Faith not to be true, as we noted against you by occasion of the text of S. Paul about receiving him who is Weak in faith. 62. Fistly, the whole force of your Argument must rely upon the truth of this Proposition; Whatsoever the understanding proposes to the will with absolute certainty, as a thing to be done, the will cannot but follow the prescript of the understanding; and therefore if Christian Faith be infallible certain, our will must embrace what it proposes, and so overcome the world and sin, and be perfect in Charity, which Principle to be palpably false, is evident by Reason, Experience, Faith, and by the Doctrine of all Protestants, at least for as much as concerns that kind of Faith whereof we speak, that is, Historical Faith. Reason dictates, that notwithstanding the certainty of Faith, the understanding may propose profitable, and delightful objects. For these things have no repugnance, but do consist together: It is certain that this object is honest, and that the same object is unpleasant, repugnant to sense, honour, profit, &c: and therefore the will placed between these different motives, the understanding, 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, unpleasant, or unprofitable, as it appears honest and Virtuous. Neither doth certainty in the understanding, necessitate us more to embrace it as honest, than the like certainty doth necessitate us to fly from it as unpleasant; especially considering that Faith is obscure, and alluring objects are clear, even to sense; Faith respects things to come, or else above the reach of our understanding; humane objections and objects are of things present, or not far of. Besides, if certainty did impose a necessity, it must follow, that at the same time we must effectually embrace the same object as honest, and fly from it as unpleasant, which is impossible. We must therefore say, that it remains in the will, to determine itself to which part it pleaseth, having sufficient direction from the understanding for either side. Sins were wont to be divided into sins of Ignorance, and of Knowledge, that is, committed by Ignorance, or with knowledge: but now if certain knowledge of good necessitate our will to embrace it, no sin can consist with certain Knowledge of good, and so all sins are sins of ignorance: and that old distinction of Philosophers, and Divines, must be corrected by this your new Philosophy and Divinity. 63. As for Experience, who knows 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 endued with , which may embrace, or reject, what is proposed by the understanding: Wherein all Protestants, for our present purpose, agree with Catholics, both in regard that they yield Freedom of will to Angels, and Adam before their fall, who yet believed by an infallible assent, that there was a God, and other mysteries revealed to them; as also because they profess that Historical Faith (and of that Faith we speak) doth not justify, nor infallibly bring with it Charity. Therefore it doth not necessitate our will. Yea even those Protestants who deny , hold not that the will is necessitated by the Act of Faith which directs, but by the effectual particular motion of Grace, which irresistably draws it. Therefore from certainty of Faith, we cannot infer a necessary cooperation of the will, or perfection of Charity. You pre●●●d to believe, or know, wit● 〈…〉 to be obeyed in all things, and co●●●equently, that the wo●●d 〈…〉 overcome; you may know with certainty, that the moral 〈…〉 ●ments, forbidding Actions repugnant to the light, and law of natura●●eason, are to be kept: You cannot but know certainly, in general, that all sin is to be avoided: You teach, that men even by evidence of reason, are to believe with infallible certainty, that they are firmly to believe the truth of Christian Religion, and consequently that all the commands of that Religion are to be observed: These things, I say, you believe, or know with certainty: and yet I hope you will not grant, that you cannot but obey God in all things, and so overcome the world; that you cannot but keep all the moral commandments; that you cannot but avoid all sin; that you cannot but observe what is commanded in Christian Religion: Therefore you must yield, that certainty in the understanding, doth not infer a necessity in the will; and so still be forced to answer your own argument. 65. In the mean time, I cannot but note, how many damnable heresies you here join together, though contrary one to an other, and even to yourself. For example, of Pelagianism, that the will may perform whatsoever the understanding certainly judgeth aught to be done, which takes away the necessity of Grace, or motion of the Holy Ghost. I said, that the will may perform; but whereas you teach further, that it must of necessity do so, you fall from Pelagianism to a contrary extreme, by taking away Freewill (which the very Socinians defend so far, that, to make men free, they make themselves sacrilegious, in denying that God can see the future free Acts of our will) 〈◊〉 you take it away in a worse manner than Caluinists do, who conceive it to be taken away by supernatural efficacious Grace, or by infused justifying Faith: but your doctrine must take it away, by every certain knowledge, though it be but natural, or by Historical fallible Faith, and historical Faith according to Caluinists, is common to all Christians. And yet in another respect, you fall into the very quintessence of Caluinisme, and puritanism, that. Faith once had, can never be lost: which is against moderate Protestants, and yourself; with Socinians. For, if Faith necessarily give us perfect Charity, and the victory over the world and sin, Faith itself which cannot be lost without sin, 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 divers, as we have observed above, concerning them who are advanced to certainty, and spirit of obsignation, or Confirmation, which are as many according to you, who live as they believe; as also 〈…〉 apostles, and those who heard our Saviour preaching, or 〈…〉 miracles; yea whosoever only believes or knows with certainty, that there is a God, and that he is to be obeyed, must of necessity, work according to his knowledge, which if he do, he cannot lose the belief of God, nor ever become an Atheist, which, I fear, is too much against experience. You must also agree with Calvinists in their Doctrine, that only Faith justifyes, seeing as they, so you, teach, that it necessarily brings with it charity, and good works. And to this same purpose, I still urge your own assertio, concerning those to whom you granta Certainty in Faith, and I suppose you will not grant that such men are justified by faith only, and other Christians by some other means, V g. justifing inherent Grace, or with Faith, Hope, and Charity: and therefore you must deny, that perfect Charity must necessarily flow from an fallible Faith. 67. Sixtly you speak very imperfectly in saying▪ Charing is the effect of Faith, if therefore the cause Were terfect, the effect would be perfect. For, the Habit of Charity, being infused immediately by the Holy Ghost, is not the effect of Faith, or of any Acts of our will, no nor of the Acts of Charity itself. But if you speak of the Acts of Charity, they proceed from the Habit of Charity; from the particular help and assistance of the Holy Ghost and from our will elevated 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 show the object, without any necessitating influence. S. Paul saith [1. Cor: 13.13.] The greater of these is Charity, and who ever heard that the effect can be more perfect than the cause? Or if you say, that Faith is not the total, but only a partial cause of Charity, which therefore may be more noble than Faith itself, then, by what logic can you infer, that Charity must be perfect because it is the effect of a partial cause, less perfect than itself? Rather according to your discourse, joined with the words of S. Paul, that, Faith is less perfect than Chatity, we must say thus: Charity is the effect of Faith, and therefore 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 learn, that when some cause, or condition, concurs to the production of an effect, not by itself, but necessarily requires the company and cooperation of other causes, that such a cause, or condition, can by itself alone produce such an effect? But let us suppose Faith to be the cause of Charity, and by itself alone sufficient for moving our will to Acts of Charity, doth it follow, that it must do so irresistibly, and in such manner as that it remain not in the power of our will either to exercise no act at all, or to produce a more or less perfect one? Remember your own distinction and words to Char: Maintained, in your Pag: 172. N. 71. That, a man m●y fall into some error, even contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently, and not irr-sistibly, so that he may learn 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 doctrine of free w●ll in beti●uing, if it be ●ot of 〈◊〉 nature? And you having endeavoured to prove this out of divers places of Scripture, conclude; God may teach, and the Church not learn; God may lead, and the Church be resrachry and not follow, 68 Now I retort this Argument, and ask, why a man may not fall into some error contrary to the truth which he was taught, and which once he believed, and commit some sin which Faith dictates not to be committed, if Faith teach him only sufficiently and not irresistibly; and who can ascertain 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 remain without perfect Charity. 69. Seventhly, you say Pag: 329. N. 7.] that, the Apostles believed with certainty, and [P. 37. N. 9] you grant that they who live as they believe, will be advanced to as great a certainty, as those which heard the Gospel from Christ himself, which saw with their eyes &c: and yet I suppose you will not deny, but that the Apostles, and those other, might increase in Charity, and that, Faith in their understanding did not impeach the freedom of their will, without which there can be no obedience, which as yourself teach [Pag. 329. N. 7.] can hardly have place where there is not possibility of disboedience, as there is not when the unstandin? does all, and the will nothing: Therefore certainty of belief, stands well with freedom to exercise Acts of Charity with great or little perfection, or to commit deliberate sins. 70. But let us 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 praise, or reprehension, which can only belong to free Actions: and then how can Charity here be perfect, if upon just account, and due consideration, it be not so much as laudable? Or how can any be commended for not committing a deliberate sin, which he cannot commit; I sinned in holy Scripture praise given, and eternal glory assured to him, who could transgress, and did not transgress; do evil, 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 commit evil, and did not commit it? From whence follows, that your Assertion (if faith were infallible, Charity must needs be perfect) is so far 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 praise: or if such Actions be free, than it is in the power of the will to exercise perfect, or remiss ones, or to reject God's Grace, and abstain from all such Acts, and so Charity shall not necessarily be perfect. Thus your Principles, and sequels, plainly destroy themselves. 71. Eightly, you teach, That, if faith were infallible, it should be impossible for any true be●●euer to commit any d●●ikerate sin, 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 belieuers 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 commit any deliberate sin, you seem to suppose that he may commit indeliberate sins, which being sins, must be voluntary and free, (though not always so perfectly voluntary, as those which are committed with full deliberation or reflection) and worthy of blame, and punishment, and he who commits, them in that respect, love's God with less perfection than an other, who is more vigilant, and commits such sins more seldom, and so all true believers should not be equal in Charity. 2. If infallible faith take away freewill, it deprives men of power or possibility to commit any sin at all, though never so indeliberate: Or if it leave them with freewill, they may commit deliberate sins. Therefore the difference, in this place, of deliberate and indeliberate sins, is destructive of itself. 3. Whereas you say, that as we make no degrees in faith, so there would be none in Charity: I answer; you should have said the direct contrary; namely, that seeing you are not ignorant of our Doctrine, that there be degrees in Charity, it must follow that we also believe that there are degrees in faith, the Habit whereof is increased by every Act of of Charity; as you also [Pag: 37. N. 9 teach, that faith is increased by devout and humble prayer, and sincere obedience. But this point puts me upon a demonstrative Argument against you, in this manner. You teach, that if one live as he believes, the spirit of God will advance him to a certainty in faith. Now let us propose two persons: th●one endued with infallible Faith, who according to your Objection, must therefore be so perfect in Charity, that he can make no progress therein, nor commit any deliberate sin: th●other with your probable fallible faith, who yet by humble and devout prayers, and sincere obedience, makes continual progress in Faith and Charity, and therefore will at length arrive to a degree of Faith, and Charity, equal to him, whom we at first supposed to be endued with infallible Faith, and perfect Charity, which being not infinite, the other by daily improvement of faith, and Charity, may and must at length arrive to the same degree of perfection; And then all your Objections against us for our infallible Faith, do instantly fall heavy upon yourself, who will be demanded, whether such a man can commit any deliberate sin, or make any progress in Charity? If he cannot do either of these, why do you infer● as absured in us, the very same sequel which yourself must grant? If he can do both these things, that is, commit deliberate sins, and make progress in Charity, why do you say that he cannot do so? I do not see, how you can avoid this Dilemma, and contradiction with yourself. 72. Ninthly, you say: Whosoever fynds in himself any true faith, must presently persuade himself that he is perfect in Charity: and whosoever discovers in his Charity any imperfection, must not believe that he hath any true faith. But these or like sequels, follow from your own, not from any doctrine of ours. For, seeing on the one side you teach, that by Prayer, progress in Charity, and obedience, men will arrive to the spirit of obsignation and perfect faith; and on the other, that, faith is the cause and measure of Charity, it follows, that whosoever fynds in himself such a perfect faith, (which he must have, because he is obliged to live as he believes) must presently persuade himself, that he is perfect in Charity: and whosoever discovers in his Charity any imperfection, must not believe that he hath such a faith, as he should have. Every one therefore is obliged to have a perfect faith, both because he is obliged to live as he believes, and to make progress 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 keep the commandments, and to have Charity, which is the effect, we must have faith, which is the cause: and so upon a double account, we are obliged to a perfect faith, both as Charity, or living 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 thereof, which you say is faith. Wherefore upon the whole matter, your probable faith, remains only to such, as keep not the Commandments, nor live as they believe; which if they did, God would raise 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 effectual to true obedience; and; that for sincere obedience God may and will raise men higher to a Certainty. Therefore a primo ad ultimum, the weakest Faith, if it be effectual to obedience, will bring men to certainty: Therefore none de facto want such a certainty, except they whose faith is not living nor effectual to obedience. And further; seeing you confess yours not to be certain, it must follow, that it is not effectual to true obedience; otherwise it would be improved to a Certainty. 73. But this is not all, that occurrs to be said in this point. Remember your doctrine [Pag: 379. N. 70.] and elsewhere, that repentance necessary to salvation, requires effectual dereliction and mortification of all vi●es, and the effectual practice of all Christian virtues', which whosoever performs, exercises very perfect obedience, and shall not fail of being raised higher to a Certainty of faith. Therefore your fallible faith will remain only in sinners. For, if one either give himself to sincere obedience, and so fall not into great sin, or truly repent by your kind of repentance, he must pass to a certainty of Faith, and so all in state of salvation, both Saints, that is, who have not sinned mortally, and repentant sinners, cannot want the spirit of Obsignation, as you call it, and certain Faith. Why then do you deceive the world, and delude poor souls, with a fallible faith, or persuasion, and not absolutely proclaim to the world, that infallible Faith is necessary, since even according to your grounds, it is necessary for all sorts of people; 74. Now all your Objections, and my Answers, being unpartially considered, let any man judge whether your Arguments deserve such epithetons as you give them, of demonstrative, convincing, invincible, clear, and the like; and what reason you had to say [P. 326. N. 4.] These, you see, are strange, and portentous consequences, and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is clear and apparent, which shows this doctrine of yours, which you would fame have true, that there might be some necessity of your Church's infallibility, to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth, but even to all Religion and Piety, sit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in faith or Charity. And therefore I must entreat and adjure you, either to discover unto me (which I take God to witness I cannot perceive) some fallacy in my reasons against it, or never hereafter to open your mouth in defence of it. 75. I answer: S. Paul had good reason to say, Scientia inflat: [1. Cor: 8.1. Knowledge puffeth up; it is a poisonous quality, making the person swell, his Arguments, and all that he does or says, swell; and emptyness appear greatness; it is a multiplying glass, that stirs up in men's fancies, strange and huge apparitions, from nothing. But Sir, remeber that your Objections make no more against Us Catholics, than Pictestants, who profess Christian Religion to be infallible, and, I believe, will not believe your bare word, that these consequences are clear: Christian Historical Faith is infallibly true: Therefore it must be lost by any least doubting, though resisted, (that is, by a nodoubt, as I have showed) it must be incompatible with any deliberate sin: it must bring with it Charity so perfect, that we can make no progress therein. For my part, I do in no wise understand such deductions, nor how any man of understanding should take them for good, as I have showed more than sufficiently; though yet I must add, that though the consequences which you pretend to deduce from our doctrine, be strange and portentous in themselves, yet to you they ought not to seem so or at least ought not to be publicly avouched by you for such. For, besides that the very same consequences, which you deduce from our doctrine, follow from your own assertions, (as I have proved) answer, I beseech you these few Demands. 1. Whether it be more convenient, that true Divine Faith should be inconsistent with an involuntary Doubt, (which you infer against us as a great absurdity) or, that it should be compatible with a voluntary, sinful, damnable, not only Doubt, but positive assertive Error; as you teach (Pag. 368. N. 49.) and call the contrary doctrine a vain and groundless fancy, as I observed above; or that it may stand with an assent, that probably it may be false; or, with a preparation of mind to forsake it, if seeming better reasons offer themselves against it, than you conceive yourself to have for it, which, for ought you know, may happen, as I shown 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 inevitably follows out of your Tenets put together; 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 justified by a sirme and certain Faith that they are just, and that charity and good works are inseparable from such a Faith: and then seeing according to your own 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 certain Faith, it follows, that their charity must of necessity be perfect, and that no just man can make any progress therein. 3. Whether it be more absurd, to hold an impossibility of committing any deliberate sin; or to believe that all our best actions are deadly sins. Or whether it be worse to teach, that one cannot break the commandments, which you, against all truth, impute to us, Or, that he cannot keep them, even with the assistance of God's grace, which is the common doctrine of Protestants. Thus then, it is not our doctrine, but the errors of you and your brethren, that must in many respects make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or charity. And what a Paradox is this? A weak and fallible Faith makes men diligent in making Progress in charity, and a strong infallible Faith is fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progress in Faith or Charity, as yond are pleased strangely to speak, directly against the admonition of S. Peter, (1. Pet: 5.) cui resistite fortes in Fide, whom resist, strong in Faith: Not weak in Faith, as he should have spoken according to your portentous Divinity. Morover, since you object against us, that, if Faith be infallible, men cannot increase in charity, and yet yourself, (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 us, must be cause that they cannot increase in charity) what will follow, but that, men will be not only careless, but fearful to pray, to be obedient, and exercise acts of charity, lest by degrees they be advanced to a certainty of knowledge, and loss 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 own, or exhortations or others; And thus their obedience and charity being cause of such a certainty in Faith, and this certainty hindering all progress in charity, we must infer a primo ad ultimum, that charity is most prejudicial and pernicious to charity itself. These are the fruits of your Doctrine, and consequences of your Objections against us. 76. Object 5. To prove that Faith cannot be certain, if it be obscure, you spend many words (Pag. 329. N. 7.) but bring no reason besides a mere resolute assirmation, that it is so. And (Pag 330 N 7.) you say, Look what degree of assent is infused into the understanding, 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 go ten miles an hour upon a horse that will go but five; to discern a man certainty through a mist or cloud that makes him not certainly discernible; to hear a sound more clearly than it is andible; to understand a thing more fully than it is intelligible: and be that doth so, I may well expect that his next injunction will be, that I must see something that is invisible, hear something mandible, understand something that is wholly unintelligible. And; That I should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith requirea of me, this, I say, far any man to be bound to, is , and unreasonable, because to do it is impossible. And N. 8. I deny that it is required of us to be certain in the highest degree, infallibly certain of the truth of the things which we believe; for this were to know, and not believe, neither is it tessible unless our evidence of it, be it natural, or supernatural, 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 understanding. Hear you see what he affirms, without so much as offering to give any reason or proof And therefore. 77. I Answer: as you object by merely affirming, so I might answer, by simply denying. But I will allege a proof above all exception; which is, your own doctrine delivered more than once. (Pag: 36. 37. N. 9 The spirit of God may and will advance his servants higher, and give them a certainty of adherence beyond their certainty of evidence. And: P. 112 N. 154. God's spirit, if he please, may work more, a certainty of adherence beyond a certainty of evidence. Behold a certainty of adherence beyond the certainty of evidence. (And, Pag. 37. N. 9) To those that believe, and live 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 believe. If these men know, (though how, they know not,) why do you impugn divine Faith, which is the Gift of God's Spirit, and all good Christians believe, and in a manner feel to be infallible, because you do not understand or know the how, or manner thereof? 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 do 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 whereas you say, that this were to require you, to go ten miles upon a horse that will go but sieve; to hear a sound more clearly than it is audible; to understand a thing more fully than it is intelligible, in stead of proving, you do but beg the question, and suppose that nothing is certainly intelligible or credible, unless it be evident, which is the very point controverted, and we affirm, that our understanding, may in this sense go ten miles, though in dark; may intellectually hear a found which is audible, and understand a thing intelligible, though not evident. And in this manner yourself must say, and answer for those who you believe may attain a certainty beyond evidence; and yet you will not yield that they understand a thing more fully, than it is intelligible. And then you must retract what you said, that, to believe a thing, the truth whereof cannot be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me, is , because to do it is impossible. S. Paul defines Faith to be Argumentum non apparentium, an Argument of things which appear not: Therefore things not evident, must be believed: and to say, that they cannot be believed with certainty, though they do not appear with evidence, is injurious to God's Power, as if he could not by his special supernatural Grace and motion, which is required to every Act of Faith, supply the want of evidence, Neither can there be showed, any such essential conjunction, between evidence, and certainty, that this may not consist without that. There may at first sight appear some show of repugnance, between evidence and obscurity; certainty, (which seems to exclude all possibility of fear that the contrary be true) and probability (which of itself excludes not such fear) and yet yourself say (pag: 25. N. 29.) whether knowledge and Opinion touching the same thing, may stand together, is made a Question in the schools: and it is very commonly held, that they may stand together, in the same understanding: neither are there wanting very learned men who think they may be consistent in the same Act. If then evidence and obscurity, certainty and probability, may stand together, what ground can you bring to prove an incompatibility between Certainty, and Obscurity, which carry no show of repugnance, in any kind of those Oppositions, which Logicians have set down? 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 form, as darknees with light, or as ignorance or Error with knowledge; and so conceive it impossible, that such obscurity can sland with certainty, which must needs bring with it some intellectual light. Which imagination you seem to discover (Pag: 325. N. 2.) where you say, That Science and knowledge properly taken are synonymous terms, and that a knowledge of a thing absolutely unknown is a plain implicancy I th●nke are things so plain, that you will not require any proof of them. In which words you must suppose, that the objects of faith are absolutely unknown, as if Faith were a privation of all light or knowledge: and yet with little consequence to your own words, (Pag: 25. N. 29. you say:) whether knowand Opinion touching the same thing, may stand together, is made a Question in Schools: which according to you, could be no question, if opinion had no knowledge or light at all, because the knowledge of a thing absolutely unknown, is, say you, a plain implicancy. Which words, as I said of Faith, seem to suppose, that Opinion is a privation, or negation of knowledge, 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 form 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 understanding, which is the eye of our soul, must involve some light, or clearness, as every, even imperfect sight of our corporal eye, is endued with some evidence, which, in comparison of a more perfect sight, or act of seeing, may be termed obscure, though in itself, 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 candle 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 joined with certainty by the most prudent command of the will, which keeps our understanding steadfast 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 find by usual, and natural course of things, or experience, (which ought not to be put in balance with God's Omnipotency, it is harder, to give a reason, why they may not stand together naturally, than to imagine with any colour of reason, that they are incompossible, by a supernatural assistance, and grace of the holy Ghost. And therefore Divines with the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas only say, that our understanding without evidence, is like to a stone out of its centre, 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 merely by means, must be are proportion to, and cannot exceed the virtue of the means 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 you infer, if you mean that the Assent which we give merely for the Arguments of Credibility, considered in themselves, is no stronger than those Arguments can make it. This we willingly grant, but absolutely deny, that Divine Faith is measured by those Arguments, and not by Divine Revelation, and Gods supernatural Grace. And so your example of sire, water, honey, and gall prove only, that Christian Faith cannot be stronger than God's Testimony, and Grace, which are the causes of Faith; which no man denies. This Answer is easy and clear; but yet by way of supererogation, I will add these considerations, which will show that your examples make against yourself. First: A thing by water may be made more cold than water &c: if water, or fire be elevated by Divine Power, to work above their own natural forces, and produce in an other subject, more intense cold or heat, than they have in themselves. For, as by miracle fire may be hindered from producing any heat, or other natural effect, so it may be enabled to produce more perfect effects, than it could have done by its own power. Thus all your instances may be applied against yourself; That as fire may be elevated to effects above itself, so our understanding may be raised above the assent, which it can receive from the Arguments of Credibility, by a pious and prudent command of the will, and particular motion of the Holy Ghost. 2. Although the heat of fire, coldness of water &c: considered in themselves, cannot make any thing more cold, or hot, than themselves, yet if they be taken as propertyes of water or fire, ordained to make way to introduce the substance of fire and water in to other subjects, they concur as dispositions to the production of things more perfect than themselves, that is, the substantial forms of water and sire, in such sort as those forms cannot but follow those dispositions: and in this sense, a thing by heat may be made more hot than the heat itself, in regard that such a heat, necessarily introduceth fire which is the fountain, and eminently more hot, than any particular heat proceeding from it. Now in proportion to this your example. I say, that, as such Accidents as are dispositions to a substantial form, concur to an effect more noble than themselves; so Arguments of Credibility, as they point at Divine Revelation (as S. john shown a greater Authority than his own, by bearing witness of our Saviour) may dispose us to an Assent of Christian Faith, whereby they may truly be said to exceed themselves, as they are merely considered in themselves, without further relation to a more noble Form, or Assent, to which they prepare us; because they informing our understanding, that there is good reason, and obligation, to believe some Truths as witnessed by God, the will is obliged, under pain of damnation, effectually to move the understanding, to the belief of such Articles, with an Assent proportionable to that supreme Authority, which the understanding not being able to do by its own forces, and God commanding nothing impossible, there cannot be wanting the necessary concurrence and special Grace of the Holy Ghost, for producing an Act of Divine, supernatural, infallible Faith. 80. Yourself say, [Pag: 331. N. 9] There is abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the truth of Christianity: I say, so credible, that though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdom and prudence, the Articles of it deserve credit, and aught to be accepted as things revealed by God, and therefore, say I, with an Assent more certain than can proceed from humane Authority, or mere Arguments of Credibility. 3. Divers great Philosophers hold, that Accidents are not only dispositions to the substantial Form, but real causes thereof, immediately producing it, as they are instruments of the Principal substantial Agents, and make up as it were one total Cause with them. According to this Philosophy, your instances make against yourself, and do confirm the Doctrine of some grave Divines, that if we consider the Arguments of Credibility, not as they are mere inducements, precedent, and disposing to Faith, only showing the object thereof, but as they integrate the Formal object, or Divine Revelation, we must say, that they are elevated and raised up to be part of the object, and immediately causes of the Assent of Faith, not of their own force or taken alone, but joined with, and conveying to our understanding the Divine Revelation, whereby they grow to be the voice and testimony, or as it were real letters of God speaking to men by them. For which cause, S. Paul [Heb: 2.4.] affirms miracles to be a certain speech of God, saying: God withal witnessing by signs and wonders: where Theodoretus saith, that God by miracles gives a testimony to preaching Miracles therefore are in some manner the very voice of God. Whence, S. Austin [Ep: 49. Quaest. 6.] absolutely sayeth: God speaks by wonderful works. And [Marc: vlt:] it is God cooperating, and by signs confirming what they spoke. And [joan 10.] Christ our Lord said concerning his own works; They give testimony of me. Therefore, say these Divines, Arguments of Credibility, may be raised above themselves; And so your examples, and instances make nothing against us, but do confute yourself. Which contradicting of yourself, as in many other occasions, so here 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 speak of an acquired, rational, discursive faith, these Reasons which make the object seem credible, must be the cause of it. If you speak of a supernatural infused faith, than you either suppose it infused by the former means, and then that which was said, must be said again, &c: Do not these words destroy themselves? Or what sense can they bear? An acquired, rational, discursive faith caused by Reasons which make the object credible, and a supernatural infused faith, infused by the former means, that is, by the Reasons which make the object seem credible? If an acquired, rational, discursive faith be caused by the Reasons which make the Object credible, and a supernatural infused faith be caused by the same means 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 supernatural infused Faith, if it be caused by the same means, 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 find (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, seeing you put such a knowledge as is more than Faith, which implies obscurity, and consequently such a knowledge is endued with evidence; and yourself (Pag: 325. N. 2.) say: He that doth barely and merely believe, doth never know, and that science and knowledge are synonymous terms. Therefore you speak of an evident knowledge; and then I say how comes their certainty of adhesion to be beyond their certainty of evidence; Or how can you speak of a certainty of adhesion beyond the certainty of evidence. Who (Pag: 330. N. 7.) say, That power which infuseth into the understanding assent, must also infuse Evidence into the object: and look what degree of assent is infused into the understanding at least the same degree of evidence, must be infused into the object; If at least the same degree of evidence must be infused into the object which is in the Assent, how can the Assent be beyond the evidence of the object? 83. To these your contradictions, I add your saying [Pag: 37. N. 9] What God gives as a reward to believers, is one thing: and what he requires of all men, as their duty is an other: and what he will accept of, out of grace and favour, is yet an other. To those that believe, and live according to their faith, he gives by degrees the spirit of Obsignation and confirmation, which makes them know (though how, they know not) what they did but believe. He requires of all that their faith should be proportionable to the Motives and Reasons enforcing to it: he will accept of the weakest and lowest degree of faith, if it be living and effectual unto true obedience. In which words, you distinguish three sorts of persons, (which yet according to your own words, must fall to be the same) First of them who believe and live according to their faith; 2. of those who perform 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 effectual 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, keep the Commandments, 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 destroys itself, 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 turn against yourself 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, certain, uncertain, evident, obscure, prudent, and foolish, natural and supernatural unnatural assent. 85. All this groundless insulting, I will retort against yourself, even out of your own grounds, and jointly will show that it belongs nothing at all to our Faith. First, your Faith is free, and necessitated. Free, if you will stand to your own express words (Pag: 329. N. 7.) that there is obedience in it, which you say can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience▪ as there is not where the understanding dres all, and the will nothing. And yet that it is Necessitated, is a clear truth; since you profess to believe with no more certainty, than is evidently deduced from evident Premises, and the understanding is no less necessitated to give assent to a probable conclusion, drawn evidently from known probable Premises, than it is forced to an assent of a certain Conclusion deduced from demonstrative Premises. (Pag: 331. N. 8.) having set down some Principles, which you judge to be evident and certain, you conclude thus; From all these Premises, this Conclusion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain 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 us evidently see what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true wisdom and prudence the Articles of it deserve credit, and aught so be accepted as things revealed by God. therefore there is convincing evidence for the truth of Christian Articles, as far as you believe them. And (Pag: 36. N. 9) you affirm that God requires of all, that their Faith should be proportionable to the motives and Reasons enforcing to it. If the Reasons enforce to the Conclusion, how is it not necessitated; Therefore your Faith is both free according to your own words, and necessitated according to truth in your grounds; which is also convinced by your saying, that certainty cannot be without evidence: And therefore the Faith of your choice elevated people, which you say is certain, must be evident, and consequently not free. But our Faith raising us above the evident Arguments of Credibility, remains free, and is in no sense necessitated. 86. II. For your epithetons, of being certain and uncertain: we profess and believe nothing more certainly, than that our Faith is certain, and not capable either of falsehood, or uncertainty. But your Book is Chief employed to prove your Faith not to be certain, and we are well content it be so. Yet if you remember what you say of your choicest 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 shown above) it follows clearly, that you give them a certainty which yourself hold impossible for any to have, and so you give them certainty and not certainty, that is a mere 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 elsewhere. But for your Faith, according to your grounds it must be both evident and obscure, Evident, because you believe with no greater assent than you receyve by evident Arguments; and accordingly you say (Pag: 329. N. 7.) Nothing is more repugnant, than that a man should be required to give most certain credit unto that which cannot be made appear most certainly credible: And if it appear to him to be so, than it is not obscure that it is so. According to which, we must say, that nothing is more unreasonable, than that a man should be required to give probable credit, unto that which cannot be made appear probably credible; and if it appear to him to be so, than it is not obscure that it is so. Therefore in your grounds, you must believe nothing to be true, but according to the evidence which you have thereof; And therefore (Pag. 330. N. 7.) you say in express terms: That I should believe the truth of any thing, the truth whereof 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 and unreasonable, because to do it is impossible. Therefore your Faith is evident in respect of the truth which you believe, according to the measure of your belief thereof. If you did believe with certainty, a truth for which you have 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 clear that your Faith is evident to you as far 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 understanding do all, and the will nothing. 88 Fourthly: You say, our Faith is prudent and foolish. That our Faith is prudent, and yours imprudent, Charity Maintained hath proved (Chap. 6.) and yet since you will say, that yours is prudent, it will remain imprudent indeed, and prudent in your words. And indeed none but an enemy to Christianity, can affirm 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 us 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, perpetual Existence, and Visibility, Universality of Time, and Place, Succession of Pastors, Unity, and effectual means to conserve it, Sanctity, Miracles, Efficacy in the conversion of Gentiles, (which the Ancient Fathers urge as a strong argument to prove the truth of Christian Religion, against the jews) Amplitude, and Glory of Christ's Kingdom, foretold by the Prophets: The very name Catholic, with other Notes of the true Church, which evidently agree to Our Church, and are manifestly wanting to Protestants, unless they beg or usurp them from us, as the careful Reader must confess, if he do but severally reflect on them. While therefore you blaspheme, the Faith of our Church to be foolish, you do in fact lay the same imputation on Christian Religion. Seeing then you cannot without prejudice to Christian Religion, affirm our Faith to be imprudent, and foolish, you must in good consequence be content that your own bear that denomination. Besides, (Pag. 331. N. 10.) you say. Charity maintained was mistaken in making prudence not only a commendation of a believer, and a justification of his Faith, but also essential 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 therefore 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 believe aright which are not wise. By which words you give us to understand, that it would not be very much prejudical to your Faith to be imprudent; as it is nothing against the definition 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, whereas true Christian Faith must needs be prudent. And you were too forward [to say no worse] in saying so freely, that Charit: Maintained was mistaken therein. For, if Prudence be required to every true act of moral virtue, shall we say, that true Faith may be imprudent? But you speak according to your skill in Socinian and Pelagian Heresy, which denies that every act of true Faith is essentially supernatural, and requires the supernatural motion of the Holy Ghost, for the production thereof. For how can an act supernatural in essence, be imprudent, since this is always a defect only of man, and can never be a special effect of God, as all things supernatural in essence are? Or how can the Holy Ghost particularly move, and inspire us, to an inprudence, and lightness of h●rt, the Holy Scripture saying, [Eccles. 19.4.] He who soon believes, is light of hurt? We may, I grant, think, that to proceed from the Holy Ghost, and to be a true act of Faith, which is not such; but that a belief (all things considered) imprudent, should be indeed a true act of Faith, produced by the Habit of Faith, and particular impulsion of the Holy Ghost, you have not proved, notwithstanding your confident avouching that questionless your Adversary was mistaken; whereas yourself was much mistaken in your example of having skill in Astronomy, which is a quality wholly impertinent and unnecessary to a man, as prudence is not to the acts of our Faith: Though yet indeed you will find, that Char: Maintained [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 supernatural 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, endued with more knowledge natural, or supernatural, God judging of every one according to his particular disposition, and readiness to embrace the object of Faith in the measure of understanding 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 alleged, though such an assent, whereby 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 judgement may take up the place of the former imprudent persuasion, and so God concur 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 intellectual 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, whereof one is indeed revealed, the other not; the subject with equal prudence assents to both, without experiencing any difference in those assents, and yet that which respects the object not truly revealed, cannot be an act of Faith, but the other may be such. And by this is answered what you have (Pag: 331. N. 10.) of this same point. 90. But now, that the Faith, even of your most select believers is imprudent, appears by your own Principle, that, certainty in assent cannot be without proportionable evidence in the Object. and yet you say, they have certainty beyond evidence. Therefore 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 heretofore, because it being only probable, yet you pretend to prefer it be fore any reason to the contrary, though seeming never so certain and convincinge, which certain is against all reason. Therefore your Faith is imprudent; and seeing you hold it to be prudent the conclusion must be, that it is prudent, imprudent. 92. Before I leave this point, I must ask you two little questions or Doubts. First; what you mean 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 concerns 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 certain and as prudent as the Faith of Papists; and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality, our Faith may have it as well as yours. But I beseech you, where did Cha: Maintained say, that certainty and prudence are grounds of supernaturality? He said 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 supernatural [which if it be taken in general, is false, since an action may be prudent, and not supernatural] and; it cannot be supernatural if it be not prudent? What Logic teaches an universal Affirmative Proposition to be simply converted, and from this, All supernatural Acts are prudent, to infer; Therefore all prudent Acts are supernatural: 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 time that I go forward. 93. Fiftly: you calumniate our Faith, as a natural and supernatural unnatural Assent. I answer, Our Faith is supernatural, not natural or unnatural (though I wish you had explicated what you mean by unnatural) because we acknowledge it to be Donum Dei, the Gift of God. But your faith is indeed natural, being but a probable Conclusion evidently deduced from evident probable Premises, as I have declared heretofore; and yet in words you pretend that it is supernatural, [Pag. 409. §] And though; where you seek to vindicate yourself from being guilty of taking away supernatural Faith; and (Pag: 325. N. 2.) where you will seem to admit the necessity of a supernatural belief; though in truth you do not, but with Socinians deny that our Saviour hath merited any thing for mankind, and so we receive no Grace by Christ; which was that which the Holy Fathers, and General Councils did detest and condemn in wicked Pelagians Whereby it appears, that your Faith is indeed natural and yet being pretended to be supernatural, comes to be natural, and supernatural. 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 natural, and supernatural. I must therefore conclude, that not our, but your Faith is a free, necessitated; certain, uncertain; evident, obscure; prudent and foolish; natural, and supernatural assent. 94. Object: 6. [Pag: 37. N. 9] As nothing avails with God but faith which worketh by love: so any faith, if it be but as a grain of must araseed, if it work by love, shall certain●y avail with him, and be accepted of him. Therefore a faith absolutely certain is not necessary to salvation. 95. Answer. First: To work by love, is to keep God's Commandments, 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 mere 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 remain a most strict command, under pain 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 Assent. And indeed of this Precept of Faith, we may truly say; This is the first Commandment; the performance whereof is the first step to all merit, Obedience, Salvation; And as in the eating of the forbidden Apple, though the matter in itself might seem small, yet the transgression was a grievous sin, because that command was imposed by God to testify his Supreme Dominion over man; so this Precept of Faith, exacting the Obedience of our understanding, which is the first Power of our soul, doth of itself oblige in a most severe manner, even abstracting from all further works proceeding from the will by direction of the understanding by Faith. For, God is Lord of our understanding, 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 speak of Faith of Miracles▪ as of removing a mountain into the sea; and not of Christian Faith necessary to salvation. Neither by a faith like to a grain of mustardseed, is understood a weak, probable, and fallible faith, like yours, but rather a very great and effectual belief, able to remove mountains, and trees, as appears [Matt: 17.20. Luc: 17.6.] And S. Paul [1. Cor: 13.] shows, that this faith of Miracles is very perfect, saying, If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains &c: And our Saviour declares that it is firm and certain, (Matth: 21. V 21.) If you shall have faith, and stagger not, not only that of the figtree shall you do, but and if you shall say to this mountain, Take up and throw thyself into the sea, it shall be done. And (Matt: 13. V 31.32.) The Kingdom of Heaven is like to a mustardseed, which a man took and sowed in his field. Which is the least surely of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is greater than all herbs, and is made a tree, so that the fowls of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof. Where, learned interpreters say, that, A mustard seed, especially in Syria, grows to be a tree, so that the birds of the air do dwell in the branches thereof. This shows, that as faith is compared to a grain of mustardseed, because it is little to sight, so also it is compared to it for Vigour, Virtue, Acrimony and Strength, and in no wise for Weakness, or any similitude with your fallible belief. Which yet appears more clear, by the demand of the Apostles, (Matth: 17. V 8.) Why could we not cast him out? And our Saviour's answer N. 19 by reason of your incredulity; and then brings that similitude of a mustardseed, as contraposed to their faith which was but little: and so the Arabicus hath, propter parvitatem sidei vestrae, by reason of the littleness of your faith. But it cannot be doubted that the Apostles had some faith, as you pretend to have, otherwise they would not have attempted to cast out the Devil; Therefore the Faith which our Saviour compareth to a mustardseed, and opposes to theirs, must be great and strong in itself, though small in appearance, or little in comparison of some higher degree of Faith. All which confutes your fallible faith, and shows not only that you bring this example of a grain of mustardseed impertinently, but also that it makes clearly against yourself, even though it were understood of Faith necessary to salvation; in as much as it signify a great strength of Faith, as far different from your Faith, as Certainty is distinguished from mere Probability. Besides I pray you consider, that Faith of Mirakles, is not that Faith which works by love, and so according to your own words, cannot avail with God, and can avail with Men only to show how weak, impertinent, and contradictorious to yourself your Arguments are, whereby you would prove, that a weak 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 cried, 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 Devil. 97. Now if your probable Faith be not sufficient to work by Love, and fulfil other commandments; 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.) , as S. john assures us, our Faith is the victory which overcomes the world, if the Faith of all true believers were perfect, than their victory over the world and over sin, must of necessity be perfect: Much more we must say, according to your ground; seeing Faith is the victory which overcomes the world, if your Faith be not sufficient for salvation, your victory over the world and sin cannot be sufficient for that end. This according to your principles. 98. But in true Divinity, I say; seeing God hath so ordained, that Faith should be the root and beginning of all Obedience, and Merit, if itself be not a Faith sufficient for salvation, how shall it be the beginning of Obedience or keeping all the other Commandments? God proceeds with order, and gives not Charity, where he finds not Faith. I proved in the Introduction, that the Commandments are not kept without God's particular efficacious Grace, which will not constantly be given to him who wants true Christian Faith. Nay, if justifying Grace be necessary for keeping the Commandments for long time (as I proved there) much more true Faith must be required to do it. Morover, besides our obligation to keep the moral law, or of Nature, there are precepts binding us to the exercise of supernatural Acts of infused virtues; for example, Hope, and Charity: and how shall our will exercise supernatural Acts, without a proportionable supernatural direction in our understanding? And if the direction be supernatural it cannot be erroneous, but infallibly true, and essentially different from your fallible assent, as I have been forced often to repeat. But why do I endeavour to prove this point? I cannot doubt but if you did believe that Christian Faith necessary to salvation, must be in itself infallible, by the particular precept of faith, you would not say, a Faith only probable could be sufficient to work by Love, and keep the other Commandments. For, if it be supposed; not, be a true Faith, how can it work by Love, or live, itself 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 restrain 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 fear, that the Faith of considering and discoursing men is like to be cracked with too much straining: and that being possessed with this false principle, that it is in vain to belteve the Gospel of Christ, with such a kind or degree of assent, as they yield to other matters of Tradition: And finding that their Faith of it, is to them undiscernible from the belief they give to the truth of other stories, are in danger either not to believe at all, thinking not at all as good as to no purpose, or else, though indeed they do believe it, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityes, as fearing they have not that without which it is impossible to please God and obtain etern all happiness. 100 Answer: Blessed be our Lord, who hath given us his Holy Grace, not to follow our own fancies, nor be tossed with every wind of Doctrine, but to rely on the Rock of the Catholic Church, where I never knew any such men as you talk of, nor do think any such can be found amongst Christians not; nor amongst any who profess any Religion, (which all men conceyve to signify a true and certain way of worshipping God) And who would make choice of a Religion which he did not certainly believe to be true? unless he be first tempted and tainted with Socinianism, whereby being by his mere probable belief placed between the certainty of Catholic Faith, and the No-religion of Atheists, is in evident danger, or rather in a voluntary necessity to fall into Atheism, unless he raise himself to our Catholic Certainty, as he may do by the assistance of God's Holy Grace, which is never wanting to us, if we be not wanting to it. Do not yourself teach, that if one live as he believes (and every one ought to live as he believes) he shall be raised by the spirit of God to a certainty? If then every one may, and aught to make his belief sure by a certainty, what place remains for agonyes, and perplexityes? Contrarily, by resting in a probable Faith, he hath manifest, and necessary cause of perplexity, and most just fear, lest he want that which catholics, 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 error 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 mere probability, they cannot be assured, but must be still seeking further and further; and never finding Certainty in their naked probabilities, are deservedly, by their own 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 believe at all, thinking not at all as good as to no purpose. For since, as it were by the instinct of nature, men conceive Religion to be a certainly true, and right worship of God, you, who would persuade them, that no such certainty is possible, cast them with good reason upon a necessity of believing nothing at all; wherein 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 believe it, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched agonyes and perplexityds,) seeing. Pag. 357. N. 38. you resolutely say (to Charity Maintained) of yourself: I certainly know, (and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know) that I do believe the Gospel of Christ, as verily, as that it is now day, that I see the light, that I am now writing: and I believe it upon this Motive, because I conceive it sufficiently, abundantly superabundantly proved to be Div●ne Revelation. And after a few lines you say in general; If no man can err concerning what he believes, than you mu●● give me leave to assure myself that I do believe. Do not all these words, and more to be read in the same place, declare, that, in your opinion, whosoever believes with certainty, is certain that he believes with certainty, yea and (which is more) he is certain upon what Motive he believes? How then do you say; They are in danger, though indeed they believe, yet to think they do not, and to cast themselves into wretched, &c: By the way; it is to be observed, that here you profess to believe the Divine Revelation not for itself (as the Formal Object of Faith should be believed) but for precedent Inducements, which therefore are the Formal Object of our Faith, and so it is no Theological virtue, nor a Divine Assent, as I said heretofore. 101. But above all, who can endure your saying, that considering and discoursing men find their faith of the Gospel of Christ to be to them undiscernible from the belief they give to the truth of other stories, and yet you suppose, and labour to prove, that such a faith is sufficient to salvation? I appeal to the conscience of every Christian, whether he fynds not in his soul, an assent to what he reads in Holy Scripture, far different, and of another kind, and higher nature, and greater strength, than the credit he gives to other stories. If your considering and discoursing men, have not such a feeling of Scripture, and the Gospel of Christ, they are no Christians; nor ought we to forbear, the declaring how necessary infallible Faith is, for any panicall fear of this Pharisaical scandal. Rather, we are obliged to declare the truth, lest we become accessary to their perdition, which none can avoid 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 upon that Axiom, that the Conclusion follows the weaker Premise, but I did not imagine (as I touched heretofore) you would so far betray yourself, as to hold, that, If one have probable Motives to believe that some Man did testify a truth, and have equal Motives that God reveals, or witnesserh the same thing, his assent to that truth, as it is witnessed by God, is not greater than his belief thereof, as it is witnessed by man, if the Reasons for which I believe it is witnessed by God, and by Man, be of equal strength; and yet you must say so, if with your considering men, you believe the Scripture and Gospel of Christ with the same kind of belief which they give to the truth of other stories. Wherein I confess you would do, as all Heretics are wont, pass from ill, to worse. For, [Pag: 141. N. 27.] you say: For the incorruption of Scripture, I know no other rational assurance we can have of it, than such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Books, that is, the consent of ancient Copies: such I mean for the kind, though it be far greater for the degree of it. And [Pag: 62. N. 24.] speaking also of the incorruption of Scripture, you say: I know no other means to be assured hereof, than I have that any other Book is incorrupted. For, though I have a greater degree of rational and humane Assurance of that than this, in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible, That the Scripture hath been preserved from any material alteration; yet my assurance of both is of the same kind and condition, both Moral assurances, and neither Physical or Mathematical. But now you are very careful, that the faith of considering men, be not cracked by too much straining, but be left to believe the Gospel of Christ with such a kind of assent as they yield to other matters of tradition, and is undiscernible from the belief they give to the truth of other stories. Unhappy 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 mere humane Motives, or Rules of logic. I will not lose time in telling you, that a thing may be cracked by too much straining, not only by excess, (as you unjustly accuse us) but also by way of Defect, such as your weak 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 Maintained Chap: 6. N. 2.] (Almighty God having ordained man to a supernatural End of Beatitude by supernatural means, it was requisite, that his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that End, and means by a supernatural knowledge. 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 probabilities, being backed with the strength of flesh and blood; it was further necessary, that this supernatural knowledge should be most certain and infallible; and that Faith should believe nothing more certainly, then that itself is a most certain Belief; and so be able to bear down all gay probabilities of humane Opinion:) You argue thus, [Pag: 327. N. 5.] Who sees not that many millions in the world forgo many times their present ease and pleasure, undergo great and toyisome labours, encounter great difficultyes, adventure upon great dangers, and all this, not upon any certain expectation, but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity, and that not infinite and eternal, but finite and temporal? Who sees not, that many men abstain from many things they exceedingly desire, not upon any certain assurance, but a probable fear 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 upon a little hope that by doing so be might gain a hundred thousand pound! and I would feign know what gay probabilities you could devise to dissuade him from this Rosolution? And if you can devise none, what reason then or sense is there, but that a probable hope of infinite and eternal happiness provided for all those that obey Christ jesus, and much more a firm faith, though not so certain, in some fort, as sense or science, may be able to sway our will to obedience, and encounter with all those temptations which Flesh and Blood can suggest to avert us from it? Men may therefore talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty, but did they generally believe that obedience to Christ were the only way to present and eternal felicity, but as firmly and undoubtedly as that there is such a City as Constaninople, nay but as much as Caesar's Commentaries, or the History of Sallust, I believe the life of most men both Papists and Protestants would be better than they are. Thus therefore out of your own words I argue against you: He that requires to true faith, an absolute and infallible certainty, for this only Reason because any less degree could not be able to overbeare our will &c: imports, that if a less degree of faith were able to do this, than a less degree of faith may be true and divine and saving faith: But experience shows, and Reason confirms, that a firm faith, though not so certain as sense or science, may be able to encounter and overcome our will and affections: And therefore it follows from your own reason, that faith which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge, may be true, and divine and saving faith. 103. Answer. First; when Charity Maintained wrote against D. Potter, who, with other Protestants, and Catholics maintains the infallibility of Christian Faith, he never dreamt of any necessity to prove such an infallibility; and therefore he touched that point incidently, and not of purpose, as a thing presupposed, not to be proved. And therefore what you object against us, 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 Char: Maintained, which was, that unless Faith were infallible, it would not be able to bear down all probabilities of humane Opinion, offering themselves against it, that is, it could not be constant and permanent; and therefore must either be infallible, or end in none at all. Now your Objection tends only to prove, that a probable faith may be sufficient to sway our will to obedience, in respect of other Precepts concerning Works or Manners: all which though we did grant, yet such a faith could not be sufficient to salvation, which cannot be obtained 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 have, I have proved already; and it is clear enough of itself; if it be remembered, that we are obliged to believe the Articles of Christian Faith, by an Assent , 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 understanding, and a prudent settled resolution never to alter for what reason soever: and to say the contrary, is to turn mere probability into absolute certainty. What is more vulgarly known than that Probability is essentially the root of fear lest the contrary may be true, and involves an aptitude to be changed, if better reason present itself. We may well compare Probability in the understanding, with Passions in the Appetite, which are a source of prepetuall motion. Active and Passive, to move, and to be moved. Or it is like the humours in our body, which destroy it, and themselves. For, Probability by the fear it hath adjoined, is still in actu primo, in a disposition, and readness to destroy itself. And we may say: Qui sibi nequam est cui bonus erit? He that is wicked to himself, to what other man will he be good? If Probability cannot conserve itself, being left to itself; how will it encounter with accidental temptations, arising from the Devil, World, Flesh, Passions, fears, Hope, Love, Aversion, Obstinacy, Animosity, Pusillanimity, Education, and the like? If you were to give a reason, of your so many changes in Religion, you must refer 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 Papist, and the day that you did so, you were convicted in conscience that your yesterday opinion was an error: That afterward upon 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 here you specify: as, that you passed the second time from Protestancy to us; and how then were you a confirmed Protestant?) And in the same [N. 103. Pag: 304.] That you do not yield your weakness altogether without apology, seeing your deductions were rational. Behold the ground of your alterations Rational and probable deductions! which ground will remain without end, till one be settled by certainty. A fearful state, wherein one may, yea ought, at the hour of death to change his Religion, if seeming better reasons, do then present themselves against, than he hath, for, it! whereby he may come to die 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 perpetual and incessant offer, or a temptation, to alter their faith, and pull down their former Religion, before they have time to build, or resolve of a new one. Besides, Christian Faith being obscure, and evidence the natural centre of our understanding (without which, it is like a stone violently held from falling) no wonder if the strength of Certainty be necessary, to bear us up, above the inclination we have to be placed in the centre and light of Evidence; whereby it falls out, that humane reasons against Faith, being connatural, and as it were level with our understanding, are easily and eagerly accepted; especially since the mysteries of Christian Faith seem contrary to Reason, because indeed they are above it. 106. Morover, if we reflect on the Essicient Cause of your probable faith, which I have proved to be only strength of nature, how weak and changeable must it be? If Holy job could say of Man, nunquam in eodem statu permanet, he never remains in the same state: job 14. V 2.] much more may we say the same of the weakest belief in the soul of man, which is mere probability, produced by the only forces of him who never remains in the same state, Lamentable experience hath taught us, how many of great wits, yea of zeal, and piety, who stood as Cedars of Libanus, and shined like beacons to enlighten others, have fallen into damnable, and sometimes, even foolish heresies, though once they believed the contrary Truths, and Articles of our Faith, with absolute certainty: Such is the imbecility of nature; And then what can be expected of a belief, which expressly tells itself, that it is not certain; and which believes no point of faith with certainty, except that Faith itself is not certain? Holy Scripture assures us, that, he who loves danger, shall perish therein. [Eccli: 3. V 27.] It is in every man's power by Divine assistance, to arrive to a certain true belief, as I shown even out of Chillingworth himself; and this he is obliged to do by the immediate Precept of Faith, and by the obligation of Charity to ones self, which binds us to choose the safer part in a matter of so great moment; and therefore let no man please himself in a probable Faith, and put himself, not only in danger, but in certainty of perishing by such a weak, probable, and changeable Assent. 107. And now I hope it appears, that the Reason which Chari: Maintained gave for the infallibility of Christian Faith, remains very good, and , 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 have been expected of Char: Maintained, to prove the Mystery of the most Blessed Trinity, of the incarnation of the second Divine Person, his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, the eternal reward of Saints in Heaven, and punishment of sinners in Hell, or any other Article of Christian belief, common to Catholics and Protestants, as this truth, that Christian Faith is certainly true. The truth is, that I'll: doth so far descent from Protestants, that I cannot be thought to write against him, or to confute any defence 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 hit that mark, at which they never aimed, nor confute those, against whom they were never intended. Yet in fact this argument which here you impugn, doth rightly prove the necessity of an infallible certain Faith, as I have showed; as also that your Objection and endeavour to prove, that a fallible Faith is sufficient for the exercise of good works, is nothing to the purpose, since Char: Maintained spoke of sufficiency to observe the precepts of Faith, and if you believe S. john chrysostom cited above, that according to S. Paul it is a harder matter to believe the high mysteries of our Faith, than to exercise good works, you will easily infer, that although you could prove a probable Faith to be sufficient in order to Obedience, or exercise of good works, yet it would not therefore remain proved to be sufficient for believing, as we ought. And S. chrysostom saying, that it is so hard a thing to believe, supposes Christian Faith to be more than probable. 108. Fourthly, I say, That although the words of Char: Maintained, be taken in the sense, which you would put upon them, yet your Arguments are of no force to confute them, or to prove that a fallible Faith is able to overcome our will, and encounter with humane probabilities, backed with the strength of flesh and blood. And; First I must entreat you, not to cozen your Reader as a Minister fooled his Auditors, who after he had spoken much of God's Commandments, in the close of his discourse, desired not to be mistaken, as if he believed that those Commandments, of which he had spoken, could be kept; for, it was very certain they could not: which if he had told them in the beginning, he might have spared his own pains, and the exercise of their patience in hearing his prating, and praising an impossible thing. Our Saviour said; if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: (Matth: 19.17.) These men tell us; if thou wilt enter into life, believe firmily as a matter of Faith, that thou canst not keep the commandments. But to our purpose: lest Mr Chilling, lose his labour, and deceive his Hearers, I must beseech him to deal plainly, and before he goes about to move their wills, he would in form their understandings by letting them know; that he is to speak of infinite and eternal happiness, provided for all those that obey Christ jesus: and of unspeakable, eternal torments to be inflicted on all such as break his commandments; but withal he must assure them, that although both Papists and Protestants teach, that all must believe with absolute certainty, there is a Heaven, a Hell, Eternal rewards, and punishments; a Saviour, a Resurrection, working of miracles, and the like, yet that with men considering, discoursing, and using rational deductions, according to the never failing rules of Logic (which are his words in several parts of his Book) such as He, and his fellows are; the matter passeth far otherwise. For they believe, that the teaching a necessity of such a certain Faith, is a Doctrine most presumptuous and uncharitable. (Pag. 328. N. 6.) and a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence (Pag. 325. N. 3) And that indeed the Articles which all Christians believe. may (for aught they know Certainly to the contrary) in the end prove false, and no better than dreams. Thus I must entreat him to prepare his Auditors, and then let us hear how he will go about to persuade, yea oblige them under pain of eternal damnation, to the observance of things most difficult, and repugnant to humane principles, natural inclinations, flesh and blood, self-love, and in a word, which are To the Gentiles, foolishness; to the jews a scandal [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 us then hear him, preaching rather, than proving in the words which I cited in the Objection, who sees not, that many millions &c: 109. To which your lose kind of disputing, divers would give different answers. Perhaps some, hearing from others your so many changes of Religion, and from yourself, that your present belief is but probable; they would take time for trial, how long you would persever in your sect, of a late Date for time, and strange for the novelty, as being contrary both to Protestans, with whom you lived so long time, and against Catholics, to whom you joined yourself, not by any force, (for who, or what, except evidence of truth, could force you to a Religion, lying under the burden of a long, and cruel persecution?) but upon due consideration of Reasons on all sides, and not taking things at a second hand, or upon credit, but by examination made immediately by yourself, or by conference with others, who gave you all freedom, and encouragement to propose your difficultyes. And for this their delay in resolvinge, they might perhaps make use of a saying of your own, 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 certain, to a belief confessedly not certain, and persuade others to do the same, may in time pass from a non-certainty, to a nonentity, or nonexistence of all Faith, and so by degrees bring your proselytes to plain infidelity. 110. Others will answer; That indeed if men were once infaliibly certain, of the great promises, and threats you mention, of Heaven, Hell, Resurrection from death etc. They could excogitate no satisfying reason, to avoid Obedience, and keeping the commandments: 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 and certain, and proportionable to their natural inclinations, and powers of Body and soul, and then hear you telling them, that no Religion is certain, and talking of things to come; a far of; and in another world which to humane reason, not assisted by certainty of Faith, look like the spatia imaginaria before the world was created; you ought not to wonder, if (notwithstanding all the fair words in your Objection) men would be apt to plead, the possession of their Freedom, and liberty, which they will not easily bring under so strict obligation, and seeming heavy yoke, merely upon a belief, concerning which yourself profess to have only this certainty, that it is not certain. Christians firmly believe by Faith, know evidently by reason, see daily by experience, that die they must, they hear all men say, and themselves believe, Death to be Omnium terribilium terribilissimum, the most dreadful of all dreadful things, and yet we see, they more apprehend the danger of wetting their , by a gentle shower threatened instantly to fall, than death itself. And why? because the one is apprehended as almost present, the other is looked on as far of for space of time, as the vast body of the sun seems to be a small thing, by the great distance of place. Besides, divine and supernatural Objects, hold so great disproportion with humane Reason, and contrariety with our natural inclinations, that they appear either hard, or impossible, and no more apprehensible by possession, than comprehensible by reason. I beseech you, tell me sincerely, what you think would have been the Success of S. Paul's preaching, to the Athenians against their false Gods, and for the true Messiah, and Resurrection of the dead▪ if he had told them clearly, that they could have no certainty of those, or any other mysteries of Christianity? 111. Upon these grounds it appears, that your Objections are of no force; and in particular that which you did propose as unanswerable, What man say you, was there ever so madly in love with a present penny, but that he would willingly spend it upon any little hope that by doing so, he might gain an hundred thousand proud? 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 keep the commandments, to forgive, and do good to their deadly enemies, to suffer persecution, to bear their Cross, to deny themselves &c. then they could even possibly find in spending a single penny, in the case you propose, devested of any accidental difficulty, or aggravating circumstance, only considering the disproportion between a penny, and so many thousand pounds, which is so vast and evident to sense and reason, that the will remains determined, and in a manner necessitated to give so little, for so much; and a man greedy of gain, would in some sort find as great difficulty in such a case, not to give a penny for so many pounds, as to give so many pounds for a penny, which, in respect of those thousands, looks like nothing compared to something. But the difference between earthly, and heavenly things, though it be in itself incomparably greater, than any disproportion can be conceyved between worldly objects compared amongst themselves, yet to us it appears not with evidence to be so, and therefore our understanding and will, need the support, and certainty of a high, and Divine rank, to supply the evidence of reason, or sense, and resist all kind of temptations. For which cause, Faith is called the substance of things hoped for, and an Argument of things not seen: which therefore in order to us, who by nature are strangers to mysteries so sublime, must receive being, existence, and subsistence, from a firm and certain belief And now Sir, is it indeed as easy to keep the commandments (which many of those whom you call Brethren, hold impossble to be kept, and Catholics believe it cannot be done, without God's special Grace) as it is to spend a penny for gaining so many pounds because our Saviour hath so revealed, that to give 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 liberal to the poor, as they must needs be, if your objection were of force, and that there were the same proportion, between earthly and heavenly things, as there is between earthly things, compared with one another. If keeping the Commandments be as easy as to spend a penny for gaining thousands of pounds, how comes it, that so few keepe, and so many break them, which scarcely any Christian would, yea in some sense, could do, if your case did hold no less in heavenly things thenearthly? How could the special Grace of the Holy Ghost, be necessary for keeping the commandments (as in the introduction we shown, if it be as easy to keep them, as to spend a penny, for gaining thousands of pounds? How comes that pious woman in the Gospel to be so highly commended by God incarnate, for offering a mite, if it be so very easy to forgo things present, upon hope of a reward after this life?. 112, But let us alter your case a little, 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 expenses, [as worldly men conceive all they have, to be too little for their occasions] that your life, or health depended on it, as Esau apprehended of the mess of pottage, for which he sold his inheritance; that it must not be given once only, but every day and hour, as it happens in our endeavour to keep the Commandments: For, The life of man upon earth is a warfare, [job, 7.1.] let us, I say, consider your case, with these or the like, circumstances, and then answer whether it would appear so easy as you made it? Or can you prove by it so stated, that any faith, or any hope will serve to keep the commandments, which are hard to flesh and blood; which must continually be kept; and therefore require an incessant Vigilancy and solicitude; which oblige us to lose fortunes, health, and life rather than commit any one sin? You cannot but see the weakness of your Argument, and the necessity yourself, and all Christians have to answer it. 113. But there remains yet an Argument of higher consideration, against you who discourse like yourself, that is, a Socinian and Pelagian, as if the Commandments could be kept by the strength, ordirection of reason alone; or, as if the will could of itself perform, or avoid whatsoever the understanding dictates to be performed or avoided, without particular Grace, conferred for the sacred Merits of our Blessed Saviour; which is a Luciferian pride evacuating the fruit of his life and Death: Whereas all Orthodox Christians, who believe the special Grace of the Holy Ghost, to be necessary for true Obedience, are thereby assured, that the will hath not of itself force to follow, or fly whatsoever the understanding proposes to be embraced, or avoided; and consequently it is no good Argument: The understanding directs us to do this, Therefore 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 understanding for Believing with a supernatural Divine Assent, without which, God doth not give Grace to the will, for keeping the Commandments; which holds particularly in your Principle, that Faith is the cause of Charity, and then if the effect be above the force of nature, much more the cause must be so. Morover, if Faith be but probable, and consequently only natural (which sequel I have proved above) it cannot be a proportionable means to supernatural Eternal Happiness; and so you must hold, that even the Beatifical Vision is but natural: which if it be; how will you move men with your specious, but empty, words, to keep hard ways, [Psam: 16. V 4.] for an End merely natural and proportioned to a probable and changeable faith, which may prove false, and the Beatude which it propose, a Fiction, and Nothing. 114. Whereas you say: who sees not, that many millyons in the world forgo many times their present ease and pleasure, undergo great and toilsome labours &c: upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity? I answer, as above, that such gains are of the same kind with the labours and pains: I mean, they are all natural things, and neither above the forces of our understanding to apprehended, nor of our will to desire and embrace, but connatural, and in continual use amongst men, who have not much difficulty to do what they see done by others, and done by instinct, and command of nature. For, if we sift into the root of such toils, labours, and adventures as you speak of, we shall find it to be that innate and inbred desire, which every creature hath to conserve itself in Being, actuated by such means and industryes, as it is best able to lay hold on. If to forgo ease and pleasure; and undergo great and toilsome labours, and adventure upon great dangers, be apprehended necessary for the said end, it is no wonder, if they be embraced as less evils; which is no more than we see in irrational creatures. And, to affirm, that it is as easy to keep the Commandments, and obey the Gospel of Christ our Lord, as to perform 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, upon due reflection, makes for us against yourself: because the common instinct of Nature to preserve itself, is a thing Certain and invariable, proceeding from God the Author of nature, and is the ground of that most reasonable and certain Axiom, that it is lawful to resist force with force. In which Respect, he is not guilty of murder who did no more, than was necessary for his own defence: according to which consideration, your Argument proves, that▪ Faith necessary for all Christians, and which is the Root of all Piety, justice, and Salvation, must be constant, certain, and invariable, as is the common Instinct of nature, or Root of all endeavours of creatures to preserve their being. 115. I hope your Objection is fully answered by the former considerations. Now I must ask 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, etc. Since he says no such thing, as, that that was the only Reason, which might be given to prove the said Truth; for he gave that only incidently, not excluding others, and you see I have given many more, and amongst the rest, that there is an obligation to believe with an infallible supernatural Assent, abstracting from any relation to good works, or victory over our will and affections: And therefore that only, is only your own fiction. 116. I need not answer your examples, of believing, there is such a City as Constantinople, of giving credit to Caesar's Commentaries, or Salusts History; which, beside the impiety, are impertinent; since I have proved, that true Divine Faith being of a higher rank, is infallible, supernatural, and not producible but by God's Special Grace. which Epithetons do not agree to the said Examples; to omit other Reasons alleged heretofore. In the mean time, what a miserable thing do you make the Faith of Christians, in being less strong and effectual, than the belief of profane stories. Whereas if the necessity of an infallible Faith be once believed, men will seek it, and by degrees of Obedience shall by sure to find it, even according to your own 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 perform by a probable faith, all that, of which you have 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, steadfast Faith; it were injurious to God's 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 affirm, that sufficient Grace being denied 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 under pain of damnation, to believe the Articles of Christian Religion, with an infallible certain Faith. 118. Which having been proved, by Scripture; Fathers; the consent of all who believe 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 loosing all Faith and Religion, if Faith be not infallible; the nature of Divine Christian Faith; the Obedience it implies; the necessity of God's special Grace to produce it; the captivating of our understanding unto it; the manifest insufficiency of his Arguments against it; the turning his own Objections and Reasons against himself; his frequent, and in a manner continual contradictions; his multiplied changes of Religion, caused by this his Doctrine; the infallibility of Faith, I say, having been proved by these and other convincing Reasons; the next Demand will be, what means, Rule, or judge, our Blessed Saviour hath left us, 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 things necessary to be believed, the next Chapter shall be employed, in confutation of that assertion; that so, by degrees, we may come to what indeed is that Authority, upon which Christian Faith must rely in order to us. CHAP. II. ALL THINGS NECESSARY to be believed, ARE NOT IN PARTICULAR, Evidently contained in Scripture alone. 1. IN no one Doctrine, Protestants would seem more unanimously to agree, than in this: That, all things necessary to salvation, are contained evidently in Scripture. And yet it is certain, that they prove no point 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 proof of this my Assertion, we need only put them to their proofs, 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 contained evidently in Scripture taken alone. This will appear by explicating two capital words, as I may term them, of my Title, and their Tenet, Necessary, and Evident. 2. For the performing whereof, 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 blood [Act: 20.28.] a Church on earth, endued with all things necessary for the whole Community, or mystical Body; For every State or Degree; For every single Person or Member thereof. And therefore to maintain, that, Scripture alone contains all points necessary to be believed, must imply, that in, or from Scripture alone, we may evidently learn, what is necessary to be believed of all; according to the triple mentioned consideration, or distinction of Persons: which Distinction we will here only touch cursarily, and precisely as far as is necessary for our present purpose. 3. The Church, as it signify one Community or mystical Body, necessarily requires some kind of Governors or Pastors; Means, and Manner to provide for a Succession of them; Power to enact laws, and to punish offenders by spiritual Censures; some undoubtedly lawful Liturgy, or public worship of God; Sacraments, and (to omit other things) in particular, some certain infallible Means, to know this very Point; whether Scripture alone contain evidently all things necessary to Salvation; without certain knowledge whereof, there can be no certainty in the Faith of Protestants. 4. But now for different Degrees or Officers in the Church, more or less knowledge is necessary, according to their several obligations, and Duties, as for Bishops, Pastors, Priests; &c: who, for example, are obliged to teach others, Ordain Priests, conficere, and administer Sacraments &c: 5. Lastly, for every particular Person, or member of the Church, some things are absolutely necessary, in the judgement both of Catholics 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 Catholics, Baptism in Re for children, and in Re, or Voto for Adulti; as also the Sacrament of Penance, after the committing of Actual sin, if it be deadly; and finally the keeping, and consequently knowing of the Commandments. 6. For explication of the word evident; I note, that, to be contained evidently in Scripture, may be understood in three manner of ways. First, that some Point be contained in particular, and so evidently, that no man, who understands the language, can doubt what it signify according to the usual signification of the word, and that in such a Text it is taken in such a common signification, and not in some figurative, or mystical, or moral sense, as divers times it happens. For if it be capable of such a sense, I must have some certainty, that it is not taken so, before I can ground upon it an infallible Assent of Faith; and therefore I must have more than only probable (that is, some certain and infallible) means to know whether it be taken in the common signification, or, if it have more usual or common significations than one, in which of them it is taken. Which depending on the Free will of God, can be known only by Revelation, that is, according to Protestants, by some other evident Text of Scripture, and so without end, unless they can find some Text, necessarily determined to one only sense. 7. Secondly: evident may signify, that some point be indeed contained in Scripture in itself, or in particular, but not so, as to be understood clearly, and certainly by Virtue of the words taken alone, without the help of some interpreter, to whom, if antecedently we give credit, that will become evident to us 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 took for a true interpreter. Act. 8. V 35. 8. Thirdly; A thing may be evident in Holy Scripture, not in particular, or in itself; but in some general Means, or Authority, expressly and clearly delivered, and recommended to us by Scripture; which being once believed, and accepted with a firm Assent, whatsoever such a Means, or Authority, doth evidently propose, may be said to be evidently contained in Scripture, not in itself, but in that general Means, expressly recommended by Scripture. In this manner S. Augustine speaking of Rebaptisation of such as were baptised by Heretics, saith De unitate 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 perform what he should say, lest we might seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witness to his Church. And a little after: whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church, doth resist our Saviour himself, who, by his testimony, recommends the Church. And Lib 1. count. Crescon: Cap: 32. & 33. We follow indeed, in this matter, even the most certain authority of Canonical Scriptures. But how? Consider his words: Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of Canonical Scriptures, yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us, while we do that, which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend, that so, because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive us, whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, must have recourse to the same Church concerning it, which without any ambiguity the Holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us. 9 In one of these two latter senses, Catholic Authors may truly affirm, all things necessary to be evidently contained in Scripture. But Protestants, who reject the infallibility of the Church, must understand it in the first sense only, according to which, they remain obliged to a very hard task of proving, First; in general, 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 immediately, or by certain and clear deductions from it, and not by topical Arguments of their own 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 certain the words de facto are not taken in some sense of which they are capable, different from their usual, common, obvious, and, as I may say, most literal 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 said above, and so without end, unless they can allege 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 have divers literal 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 prove by some Evident Text, that all things necessary are evidently contained in Scripture in that first sense, and by an evidence of the Text alone, without dependence, 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 task Protestants are engaged. Yet this is not all. It will still remain doubtful whether that Text which did say, that all things are evidently contained in Scripture, be understood universally of all things necessary to be believed, or only of things necessary to be believed, and written: which if you will needs have to be all one, or of the same extent, you beg 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 words Necessary and Evident, I believe, any man who, as I said, shall think well before he speak, and then speak as he thinks, will hold it a very impossible thing to prove evidently out of Scripture all things necessary, for the Church, as one Mystical Body; For every Degree; and for every particular Member thereof, according to the first Meaning of Evidence, and other prescriptions which I have declared. Let us therefore look bacl a little upon those three different sorts of Persons. 11. First: for Government and Governors of the Church, if we abstract from the Authority, Practice, Tradition, and interpretation of God's Church, I wonder who will go about to prove 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 love to take words according to Grammatical derivation, not according to the Ecclesiastical Ancient use 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 Christendom, upon 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 unwritten Traditions, and Authority of the Church for interpreting Scriptures, and deciding Controversyes in Faith; and then take great pains to prove out of evident Scripture alone, that Bishops are de Jure Divino: and the same I say of any other particular Form of Ecclesiastical Government, and of the Quality, and Extent of Authority in any such Form; whether they can inflict Ecclesiastical Censures, and of what kind: concerning which, and other such Points necessary to be known in the Church, Protestants in vain 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 learn out of Scripture alone, the Form of Ordination of Priests, and other Orders; the Matter and Form of other Sacraments, which some in the Church are to administer by Office, and others to receive, (of which I shall speak more particularly hereafter) with divers other such Points necessary for the Church in general? 13. Secondly: For divers Degrees or States in the Church; no man can choose but see how hard it is to learn evidently out of Scripture alone, what in particular belongs to every one both for Belief and Practice. 14. Thirdly: For every particular Person: How can a Protestant prove evidently out of Scripture the Nature of Faith, since one Sect of them denies Christian Faith to be infallibly true, against the rest of their fellows; and an other affirms, that justifying Faith is that whereby one firmly believes that he is just, which kind of Faith others deny: or the necessary Extent of their Faith, seeing Chilling: holds that there cannot be given a Catalogue of Points necessary to be believed explicitly by all, and therefore every one, must either remain uncertain, whether he believe all that is absolutely necessary, or else be obliged under damnation, to know explicitly all clear passages of Scripture (which are innumerable) lest otherwise he put himself in danger, of wanting what is indispensably necessary to salvation; which is a burden, no less unreasonable than intolerable, even to men not unlearned, and much more to vulgar Persons. 15. Neither is there less dissiculty concerning Penance or true Repentance, than Faith; since Protestants do not agree in what Repentance consist, and Chilling: hath a conceit different from the rest, that true Repentance requires the effectual mortification of the Habits of all vices, which being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an instant, as he writes [Pag. 392. N. 8.] and therefore even that most perfect kind of sorrow, which Divines call Contrition, and is conceyved against sin for the love of God, will not serve at the hour of ones death, because, saith he, Repentance is a work of difficulty and tyme. 16. Morover, it is impossible for Protestants to prove evidently out of Scripture, that the Sacraments of Baptism, and Penance are not necessary for salvation. For where find they any such Text? If they say we must hold them not necessary, because we find no such necessity evidently expressed in Scripture, they do but beg the Question, and suppose that all things necessary are contained in Scripture; besides, that we have Scripture for both Nisi quis renatu● fuerit &c: untess one shall be borne again, &c: [joan: 3.5.] And, whose sins you retain, they are retained: [joan. 20.23.] and it is impossible for any man to show evidently out of Scripture, that those Texts are not de facto understood as we understand them, since it is most evident, that the words are capable of such a sense; and consequently we cannot be certain but that such is their meaning, unless they can bring some evident Text to the contrary; especially since that even divers chief learned Protestants teach the necessity of Baptism for children of the Faithful, as I show hereafter. And certainly if Scripture were evident against this Doctrine of Catholics, so many learned Protestants could not but have seen it. 17. The same I say of the Sacrament of Penance, 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 contemn it, do not understand what is Remission of sins, or the power of the keys: And, that it is an Error to affirm, that Confession made before God, doth suffice: And that, Private Confession being taken away, Christ gave the keys in vain (vide Triple Cord, Chap. 24. Pag. 613.) And, vitae Lutheri Autore Gasparo Vienbergio Lippiensi, [Cap. 30.] it is said: Osiander primus ex ministris Norinbergae Confessionem privatam urgebat 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 points in the Opinion, both of Catholics, 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 Catholics, and disagree amongst themselves, about the nature of Faith, and Repentance, and disagree so, as that both sides 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 capital an Error, and because they practise it, being satisfied with a probable fallible Faith. The like I say of that justifiyng Faith which Calvinists hold necessary for justification, and salvation, against Catholics and all other Protestants, even Socinians who believe it to be a mere pernicious and presumptuous fancy. As also the same may be said of Baptism, and the sacrament of Penance, which according to all Catholics and divers Protestants, are necessary to salvation, against many other Protestants. Therefore Protestant's must confess that all things necessary to salvation, are not evident in Scripture, unless they will pronounce an inevitable sentence of damnation against those, whom they call Brethren, as Teaching an Error in matters necessary to salvation, and practising in conformity to their error, either by omitting themselves, or being cause by their Doctrine, that others Neglect, or ommit things absolutely necessary to salvation: which judgement, I believe, they will not be hasty to frame against their Brethren, but rather will pretend to conceyve of these particular points of which we speak, as Chilling: (Pag: 41. N. 13.) speaks in general of persons contrary in belief, which may be concerning points wherein Scripture may with sogreat probability be alleged on both sides (which is a sure note of a point not necessary) that men of honest and upright hearts, true lovers of God and truth, such as desire, above all things, to know Gods will and to do it, may without any fault at all, some go one way, and some another: which kind of opinion if they think fit to frame of their brethren, as being men of honest and upright hearts, true lovers of God and truth &c: they must give me leave to infer, that scripture is not evident in all points, even where there is question of Articles absolutely necessary to salvation. 19 Which reason taken from their mutual 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 itself; which is evident, because many do not believe it. 20. Nay, further I must infer, that, seeing in points absolutely necessary to salvation, Charitas propria, the virtue of Charity as it respects ourselves, obligeth every one to choose the safer part, and that Protestants cannot find any evident scripture that the Sacraments of Baptism, and penance are not necessary for salvation, (not only all Catholics, but divers chief Protestants holding them to be necessary) it follows, that prorestants are obliged to believe them to be necessary, and accordingly to frame their practice. Neither can they be excused by Chilling worths saying that it is a sure note of a point not necessary, that scripture may with great probability be alleged on both sides; because this excuse implies a begging of the Question, as if there were no means, 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, contains not evidently all necessary points. 21. Thus even in this first entrance it appears, how not only untrue, but unreasonable also, this common Tenet of Protestants is. 22. Which will yet be more manifest, if we consider, that, whatsoever is necessary for the Curch immediately, as it is one community, or body, the same must be mediatè necessary for every particular member: as in a natural body, whatsoever is necessary for preserving the whole, is consequently 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 destruction of the whole. And so if the scripture be nor evident in points necessary to salvation for every part immediatè, it would follow mediatè, that it is not evident for all points necessary for the whole, even though it wanted nothing immediately necessary forth whole, as governor's &c: and there is in this, a necessary connection between these considerations of the whole and every part. It is true, every man is not obliged to be Bishop, or a Clergy man; to absolve from sins, to consecrate the Eucharist; jnflict consurs; to Govern; make Laws; Administer Sacraments; set down a Liturgy, or public 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 avoided if one be a member of a body governed by unlawful superiors, guided by Laws, destitute of power to punish offenders, fed with false Sacramemts, tied to a superstitious or sacrilegious Liturgi &c: And therefore as it is impossible to prove out of evident scripture, all the points which concern immediately 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 unprofitably; since I have already proved, as it were by a general view, the improbability and impossibility, that all things necessary should be contained evidently in scripture taken alone. Which by God's holy assistance I hope to evince more in particular by the reasons following. 24. First: seeing protestants will have nothing believed as matter of Faith, which is not evident in scripture; this very principle of theirs, That all things necessary are evidently contained 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 points of Faith are contained in scripture, but that they are contained evidently. Othetwise, if it be but obscure, we cannot have that certainty which is necessary to Faith. For, this being a point not evident to natural Reason, but depending on God's 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 appear by answering, and evidently confuting their objections out of scripture. And therefore they cannot with certainty believe the said principle. Yourself say Pag 61. N. 23.] If our Saviour had intended that all Controversyes in Religion should be by some visible judge finally determined, who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter? And may not we turn the same argument against you, and say; If our Saviour had intended, that all points of Faith and religion should be evident in scripture, without relation to any visible judge, church, or unwrtiten Tradition, who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself in this matter? And my retortion is stronger than your Argument can be; because true Catholic Doctrine believes not only scripture, or the written word of God, but tradition also, or the word of God not written, which all grant to have been before scripture, and from which you confess we receive scripture itself. And so although nothing were said in scripture, of a visibse judge to determine controversyes in Religion: yet universal tradition; sense of all Christians; and practise of God's church, in determining and defining matters of Faith, were sufficient to assure us thereof. But Protestants must either allege evident scripture, or nothing at all. This I say, not as if we wanted evident scripture, for the necessity of a visible judge of controversyes, but only to show, that we have not that necessity of alleging scripture, for this, and every other particular point, which Protestants have. 25. Secondly: I prove our assertion thus: we are to suppose, that Almighty God, having ordained Man to a supernatural End, cannot fail to provide, on his part, means sufficient for attaining thereof. Since than Faith is necessary for arriving 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 hear the Gospel. For if he left it to their freedom, it is clear that he did not esteem writing to be necessary; which yet must be most necessary if we can attain Faith, and salvation only by scripture. But Protestants, even for this cause, that they are to believe nothing which is not expressed in scripture, cannot affirm that our Saviour gave any such command to his Apostles, seeing it is evident no such thing is expressed in scripture. Therefore they cannot avouch any such command. But, for preaching, we read, (Marc: 16. V 15.) Going into the whole world, preach ye the Gospel 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, Go 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 unto the ends of the whole earth the words of them: where we hear, of hearing and speaking, but not of writing or reading: of a sound conveyed to the ears of the whole world, not of any book or writing, set before their eyes. Thus we see, that only two of the Apostles have also made themselves Evangelists by writing the Gospel, though all were Evangelists by preaching it. Chill: and his fellows think, they can demonstrate out of S. Luke more clearly than out of any other Evangelist, that his Gospel contains all points necessary to salvation, and yet He is so far from producing any command he had to write, [which had been the most clear, effectual, and necessary cause that could have been alleged] that contrarily he shows that it was done by free election, saying, (Luc: 1.1. & 3.) because many have gone about, etc. It seemed good also to me to write, etc. Neither doth any one of all the Canonical writers allege a command for writing. S. Paul saith (1. Cor: 9.16) If I evangelise, it is no glory to me: for necessity lieth upon me: for woe is to me if I evangelise not. But he says not, woe to me if I writ not; and accordingly we see some of the canonical writers differred writing a long time after our B. Saviour's Ascension, and did not write but on several 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 means to beget and conserve true Faith and religion, as S. Paul [1. Cor: 15.1.] expressly saith: I do you to understand the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also you received, in the which also you stand. And (V 11.) So we preach, and so you have believed. What can be more unreasonable, than to believe it to be necessary, that all things necessary be evidently contained in scripture alone, without dependence on tradition, or the church? Or who can believe that the Saints Paul, james, jude, john, in their Epistles written upon several occasions, or to private persons, intended to write a Catechism, or specify all necessary points of Faith? Hence it is that Eusebius, (Histor: Eccles: L. 3. C. 24.) affirms, that S. john was said to have preached the Gospel even almost to the end of his life without notice of any scripture; and in general, that the Apostles were not solicitous to write much. And the same is observed by S. chrysostom (Hom: 1. in Act. Apost.) If then Protestant's cannot prove by evident scripture, that all Canonical writers receyved a command to write, how will they prove that they were bound to publish their writings, whereof (as I said) some were directed to private persons, or that, others were, or are bound to publish them; or to read them being published? And if they can show no command for these things, how can they maintain, that there is no means to know matters of Faith, except by scripture? 26. Thirdly: you teach; That all necessary points 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 means, all must be obliged to know all the clear or evident texts of scripture: otherwise he cannot be sure that he knows all necessary points, since you give him the assurance of knowing all necessary points, only by this means of knowing all points that are evident. Therefore if he be not sure, that he knows all evident points, he cannot be sure that he knows 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, lest, that if upon examination it appear to be evident, he might perhaps have failed in some necessary point, if the text had proved to be evident, and yet unknown to him for want of such examination. Neither can it be answered, that if a text be evident, it will appear to be such. For, a thing upon due examination and study, may appear evident, or obscure, which at first sight did not seem to be such. And for this same reason, every one must learn to read the bible, or at least procure that every text thereof be read to him, that so he may be sure to know all evident, and consequently all necessary texts of scripture; it being clear that he cannot have sufficient assurance, that he knows every particular text, only by hearing sermons, or ordinary casvall discourses, or the like. And this care every one shall be obliged to use, even for those books of scripture, which are receyved by some Protestants, and rejected by others; lest if indeed they be Canonical, and he remain ignorant of any one point evidently contained in them, he put himself in danger, of wanting the knowledge of some thing necessary to be believed, You teach (Pag: 23. N. 27.) that, to make a catalogue of fundamental points had been to no purpose, there being, as matters now stand, as great necessity of believing those truths of scripture, which are not fundamental, as th●se that are. But it is necessary for every one, learned, or unlearned, to know explicitly all fundamental truths: Therefore it is necessary for every one to know explicitly all truths, though not fundamental. Now who sees not, that these are ridiculous, unreasonable, and intolerable precepts, and burdens, imposed upon men's 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 perceive how Protestants can avoid these sequels, if they will stand to those principles. For whosoever is obliged to attain an End, is obliged to use that means which is necessary for that End. Yourself (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 unlearned person) actually to disbelieve any one particular Historical verity contained in Scripture, or to believe 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, lest otherwise he may chance to omit the belief of some point necessary to be expressiy believed: Which is a greater absurdity than only to say, every one is obliged not to contradict any truth contained in scripture, though he know it not to be there contained. And as for our present purpose, you clearly suppose, that every man, though he be learned, is not obliged to know every truth contained in Scripture: and therefore 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 clear in scripture, as in other books, to such as understand the language. But for the sense; it may be affirmed with much truth,, that, abstracting from extrinsecall help, or authority, even in matters of greatest moment, proper to Christian religion, it is hard to find any one point so clear of itself, as to convince, that it must needs be understood in this, or that determinate sense. For, though the words may seem clearly to signify such a thing in objects proportionate to our natural reason: yet the hardness, and height, of Christian belief is apt to withdraw our understanding from yielding a firm assent to points which truly are above, and in show seem to be against reason. For this I will allege yourself, who (Pag: 215. N. 46.) speak thus: They which do captivate their understandings to the belief of those things which to their understanding seem irreconsiable Contradictions, may as well believe real contraditions. Since than no man can believe real contradictions appearing such, it follows according to your own assertion, that none can believe those points which to his understanding seem contradictions; and then he will be seeking some other by-sense of such words as taken in the obvious common signification, may seem in his way of understanding, to imply contradiction. Which yet appears more clearly out of other words of yours (Pag: 216.217. N. 46.) where having set down divers contradictions (as you untruly apprehend) in our catholic doctrine concerning the B. Sacrament of the Eucharist, you conclude, that if Char: Maintained cannot compose their repugnance, and that after an intelligible manner, than we must give him leave to believe that either we do not believe Transubstantiation, or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their understandings to the belief of contradictions. Which words declare, how willing a man's understanding, or reason is to be at peace with itself, and to believe nothing, wherein it cannot Compose all repugnance; and that after an intelligible manner. Seeing then, all Christians, must believe the words of scripture to be true, and yet find difficulty in composing all repugnance to reason after an intelligible manner, they are easily drawn, to entertain some interpretation, agreeable to their understanding, though contrary to the signifitation, which the words of themselves do clearly import, and perhaps was intended by the Holy Ghost. 28. From this fountain 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 natural reason, first diverting, and then averting our understanding, from that which it sees not cleared after an intelligible manner, and the loss of the first evidence, and usual signification of the words bringing men to a loss in the pursuit of the true sense of them. For this cause, the particular Grace of the Holy Ghost is necessary to believe 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 understood of the natural man. Besides which difficulty, arising from the Objects, or mysteries 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 seek, and glad to find, 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 clear enough of itself, grows to be hard, by being compared with the obvious sense of that other Text, as we have heard out of Chilling: [Pag: 41. N. 13.] that Scripture may with so great probability be alleged on both sides, that men of upright hearts may some go one way, and some another. 30. What words more clear, than those of our B Saviour [Matth: 26. V 26.] This is my Body? Insomuch as Luther in his Book Defensio verborum Coenae, says against the Sacramentaryes, who deny the Real presence: This Heresy doth not impugn doubtful opinyons and doubtful Testimonies of Scripture, but plain and express sentences of Scripture, yet many Protestants deny this Mystery of the Real presence, upon pretence that other Texts of Scripture are contrary to it, and in particular that, in S. John's Gospel [Cap: 6. V 63.] It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Which is a strange kind of interpreting words most clear, by a Text very obscure. But God in his holy Providence, permits these men to fall upon such impertinences for their own confutation; as happens in this occasion. For as they deny the Real presence of our Saviour's Body in the Eucharist, so they deny, or elude, the real Presence, or Descent of his soul into Hell, interpreting those words of the Acts 2.27. Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell, Non relenques cadaver meum in sepulchro; Thou wilt not leave my dead Body in the sepulchre. So Beza upon that place. And Vorstius in Antibellarm: [Pag: 42.] Nihil vetat, per Animam synecdochicè intelligere ipsum corpus, & quidem jam mortuum. We may well by a synecdoche understand by the soul the body even the dead body. Serranus contra Hayum, saith, that per animam (Act: 2. V 27.) non intelligitur anima, (mark, soul, not the soul) sed mortuus homo, sive cadaver, but a dead man, or a dead body. And (which is strange) he assirmes, that this interpretation is clear. For the present I will not examine this strange interpretation of an Article of our Creed, Descendit ad inferos, He descended unto Hell: (Of which, Potter [Pag: 240.] saith: The words are so plame, they bear their meaning before them) nor will I observe, even by this example, how far Scripture is from being evident, to these men who feign such glosses, upon words so clear, and yet say that their interpretation is clear. But I will only say; if the soul, which is a spirit, may signify flesh, and flesh be taken for the soul 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 soul may signify the body, why may not the body signify the soul, by the same new kind or Figure? In the mean time, these men should consider, that their own Divines assirme, S. john in that sixth Chapter not to speak of the Sacrament: and it is a strange kind of proof, 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 alleged to prove the difficulty of Scripture, even in the most Principal, and Fundamental 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 clear to prove the Consubstantiality of the son of God with his Eternal Father, than, Ego & Pater unum sumus joan: 10. V 13.] I and the Father are one? And yet the old, and new Arians with Chilling: and other Socinians deny it, pretending (falsely) 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, Creator of Heaven and Earth? And yet for the signification of the words (to omit old Heretics, as the Simonianis, Menandriani, Basilidiani, Valentinistae, Marcionistae, Manichaei, and the whole rabble of the Gnostici, who taught that there is not one God Omnipotent, Creator of Heaven and Earth) have we not in our day's Socinians, who indeed destroy the true God, by making him a Subject of Accidents, and depriving him of his Immensity, Omniscience of futura (a) Crellius Lib: 1. de vera Religione, Cap: 24. Contingentia, or the future Actions which are to proceed from Freewill? although nothing be more clear 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 prophesy with absolute certainty, things remote, for Time and Place: which being denied, the books of the Prophets must be rend from the Bible as deluding men, and worse than Apocryphal. Tertullian Lib: 2. cont: Martion: 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 deprive God of Mercy and Justice, in teaching that he predestinates men, to eternal damnation, and punishes them for sins to which they were necessitated by the same God? What can be more clear in our Creed, and scripture, than that Christ was conceyved of the Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died, risen again, and ascended into Heaven, if we look upon the words? And yet for the sense, (which is the life and soul of scripture) there are most different, and contrary doctrines, concerning these Points. I let pass those Heretics, who taught that Christ suffered not really, but only in appearance or show. (And why might not they as well say, that the words, he was crucified and died, are not to be taken literally, as our Sacramentaryes teach the words, This is my body, are to be understood figuratively?) But these I let pass, and only reflect, that for the thing signified by those words, according to our modern Sectaryes, there is neither certainty, who he is that was borne, suffered, died, risen again &c: nor of the End for which he was borne, suffered, and died; nor of the Effect and Fruit 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 redeem us, by satisfying, and paying the ransom of our sins, but only by way of instructing, or giving us example. And Calvinists teach, that, the Effect or Fruit of our Saviour's Actions, and sufferings, is not any true remission, or washing away our sins, but only a 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 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 said: It was seemly that we should have such a high Priest, holy, innocent, impolluted, separated from sinners, (Heb: 7. V 26.) O blasphemy against Christ our Lord, as if he had been truly a sinner as just men are truly just; of whom we read evident texts that they are renewed in the spirit of their mind, and have 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 falsehood 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 clear water is poured upon them, and they cleansed from all their contaminations. [Ezech, 36.25.] that they shallbe sprinkled with hyssop, cleansed, washed and made whiter than snow, [Psalm. 50, 9] that their sins shallbe sought, and shall not be found. [Psalm. 9.5.] that their sins are purged. (Prov. 19.27.) that they are all fair, and there is not a spot in them. (Cant. 4.7.) If thy sins shallbe as scarlet, they shallbe made white as snow: and if they be red as vermelion, they shallbe white as wool. (Isay. 1.18.) they have washed their robes, and have made them white in the blood of the lamb. (Apoc. 7.14.) With sundry other evident texts, which I cited in the Introduction, Sect. 9 And yet our Sectaryes will have just men and Saints to be still in sin, and so Calvinian saints are eternally stained with that, which is the most detestable thing in the very Devils, namely deadly sin. The Apostle saith, (Rom. 5.18.) As by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the Obedience of one many shallbe made just. Will Calvin say, that we were made sinners only by imputation, and not by true sin inexistent in our soul? 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 sin, or injustice, as other sinners are? But this is the fruit of relying on scripture alone, that is indeed, of following their own fancy. What can be more evident and in more express words delivered in scripture, than, that without the special Grace of God, merited by our Saviour's Life and Death, we cannot do any work, or speak any words, or think any thought availing towards eternal salvation; and yet Pelagians taught the contrary; and Socinians hold, that we merit all for ourselves, and Christ nothing for us: as contrarily, Protestants commonly say, that Christ merited all for us, and we nothing for ourselves. So contrary heresies arise, when once men despise the Authority of God's Church! What Point more clear in scripture, and more purposely and carefully proved by S. Paul, than that Article of our Creed, the Resurrection from Death, and yet the Socinians teach that in Heaven we shall have, I know not what celestial body, essentially different from that which was buried in the grave. (a) Vid: Volkel, de vera Relig: Lib: 3. Cap: 35. Besides, do not those Lutherans, who defend the ubiquity of our Saviour's Humanity, understand evident words, or do they want skill in long vages? And yet, it is manifest, that they destroy all the mysteries, of the Nativity, Ascension &c: of our Saviour Christ. For who can come, or go, or ascend, or descend from one place to another, who is presupposed to be in all places no less than God is according to his Deity, who therefore cannot be moved from one place to another? 32. Sixtly. These things considered: the Reader may justly wonder at Chilling. who expressly specifyes the said mysteries 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, merciful, a rewarder of them that seek him, a punisher of those that obstinately offend him; that, jesus Christ is the senne of God, and Saviour of the world, that it is he by Obedience to whom, men must look to be saved: If any man should deny either his Birth, or Passion, 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 judge of the quick and the dead: that all men shall rise again at the last day: That they which believe and repent, shall be saved; That they which do not believe or repent, shallbe damned; If a man should hold that either the keeping of the mosaical 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 means to discover, and condemn and avoid that Heresy, without any need of an infallible guide? Thus he. But by his leave, who does not see both by Reason and Experience, the contrary of that of which he saith, who does not see? And how hard is it to distinguish and judge 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 seem 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 points, some of them judging, that to be plain and evident in scripture, which others believe not only to be obscure, but the contrary to be true, and all this out of evident scripture, as they apprehend; as appears by these very examples, which he picks out for Truths plainly delivered in scripture, as we have already demonstrated. For God's Omniptency; the scripture saith plainly Matth: 3.9. God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And, Matth: 20.53. Thinkest thou, that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of Angels? (Luc: 1.36.) there shall not be impossible with God any word. And yet Calvin in several occasions impugns the distinction, of Catholic Divines, of Potentia Dei ordinaria, & absoluta, of God's ordinary Power, and his absolute power, and rejects that which they call Potentia absoluta. We have showed already, that God's Omniscience is denied by the Socinians, whom Chilling: highly esteems for learning, and piety also, as appears in what he says in his Answer to the Direction to N.N. N. 29.) and yet they did well understand the learned languages, and the words of scripture, for the Grammatical signification. 33. With what modesty can He say, that it is evident in scripture, that, jesus Christ is the son of God, Saviour of the world, and sitteth at the right hand of God, and hath all power given him in heaven and earth He, I say, who with Arians, and other old and modern condemned Heretics, denies Christ to be the son of God, and consubstantial to his Father; as also his Merit and satisfaction for mankind, whereby he is the Saviour of the world? The like I say of his resurrection, and that all men shall arise again at the last day, seeing Socinians teach, as I said above, that we shall have bodies in Heaven, in nature, substance, and essence, different from our bodies on earth. Against whom, these words of S. john Chrisostome (Hom: 65. in joannem post medium) are very effectual, as they were against some others who said, Corpora non resurgent, our bodies shall not rise again. Nun audiunt Paulum &c: Do they not hear S. Paul saying; For this corruptible must do on incorruption. (1. Cor: 15.53.) Neither can he mean the soul, seeing 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 us consider, who he is 〈◊〉 whom it was said, sit on my right hand: what nature that is, to whom God said, be partaker of my seat. It is that nature which heard, thou art earth, and shald return to ●arth. And; Learn who ascended, and what nature was elevated. For I willingly stay in this subject, that by consideration of mankind we may with all admiration learn 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 immortal glory in the divine Throne. And S. Austin, serm: 3. the Ascensione, saith to the same purpose; an earthly body is seated above the highest Heaven: bones ere while shut up in a narrow grave, are placed in the company of Angels; a mortal nature is placed in the bosom of immortality. And in the same place he saith; If our saviour did not rise again in our body, he gave nothing to our condition by rising again. Whosoever says this, doth not understand the reason of the flesh which he assumed, but confounds the order, and evacuates the profit thereof. I acnowledge to be mine that which fell, that that may be mine which rose. I acknowledge that to be mine, which lay in the grave, that that may be mine which ascended into Heaven. From this Secinian Heresy it also follows, that indeed they deny his true Ascension since they give him, and us, not his and our nature, but another essentially different. But indeed is the Resurrection of the dead so clear in scripture, for the sense, without any help of God's Church? How then doth Dr. Potter (Pag. 122.) say in behalf of hooker's and M. Mortons' opinion; A learned man was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholic Church, though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our Bodies. Was he a learned man? Then surely he understood the Grammatical signification of the words, and yet he erred in the sense; as also many others did, who denied Resurrection, as Basilidiani, Saturniani, Carpocratiani, Valentiniani, Severiani, Hieracitae, and others; which shows the necessity of a living judge, beside the letter, or bare word of scripture. Which appears also, by the other example which you allege as clear: That, They which believe and repent, shallbe saved: That, they which do not believe or repent, shallbe damned. For how is this clear for the sense of the words, if it be not clear what that Faith and Repentance is without which none can be saved? And yet you teach a Faith and a repentance, wholly different from that which hitherto both Catholics, and Protestants have believed and taught; as also Calvinists tell us of a Faith, justifying after a new fashion; different both from Catholics 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 Mosaical Law is necessary to salvation. Yea this instance makes against yourself, and proves the necessity of a living judge. For the first determination concerning that point, was made in the Council of the Apostles (Act. 15. V 28.) and the Scripture only relates, what their definition was; and so this proves only, that the voice of the Church, or Counsels, may be clear, both for the words and sense; Or that it may be declared by the Church of succeeding ages, if it grow in time to be obscure, which happens in this very Council. For, though no doubt but Christians of that time, understood fully the meaning of the Council, by the declaration of the Apostles, yet the contents thereof, were afterward to be declared, to all posterity, by the Church how they were to be understood, and practised. The Council said, (Act. 15. V 28. 29.) It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things; that you abstain from the things immolated to Idols, and blood, and that which is strangled. Doth not this rather seem contrary, than clearly in favour of your affirmation, that it is clear in Scripture that the Mosaical Law is not necessary? For, one part, and practise, and Law obliging the jews, was, to abstain from blood, and that which is strangled (though I grant it was also commanded before, but not to last always, as the practice of Christ's Church declareth) and yet in the council it is said to be necessary. And for the other point; that you abstain from the things immolated to Idols, S. Paul teaches, that, abstracting from an erroneous conscience, it is not necessary to abstain from them, and yet in that Council it is enjoined as a thing necessary. How then is this point so clear, if we look on scripture alone, without reference to any declaration, or practise of God's church? 35. Besides, for Circumcision; (which as the Apostle saith, brings with it an obligation to observe the whole Mosaical 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 seem clear, that it is not only not necessary, but hurtful, S. Paul saying (Gal. 5.2.) If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: yet if we also call to mind, 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 clear and universal, will seem difficult, and to be understood with some explication or restraint. For who will imagine, that S. Paul would be author of that, whereby Timothy should be deprived of all the good, he could expect from the Saviour of the world? And the difficulty willbe increased, if we add that S. Paul caused Timothy to be circumcised, propter judaeos etc. For the jews who were in those places; for they knew all of them, that his father was a Gentile; whereby one would apprehend, that S. Paul judged it necessary (at lest per accidens, because all knew that his father was a gentle) that Timothy should be circumcised; and yet contrarily, (Gal. 2. N. 3.) it is said; but neither Titus, whereas he was a Gentil, was compelled to be circumcised. It is therefore very clear that this Point which you allege as clearly expressed in Scripture, ought rather to be numbered amongst difficult, and obscure places, and (directly against your inference that there is no need of an infallible guide) shows the necessity of such a guide; because this determination, about the Mosaical Law, was a Definition of a Counsel, and must be declared by the practice of God's church, as being concerning some things, not to be always observed, but intended to be ordered by the said Church; without whose authority, how should we know when, and in what manner, the keeping of the Mosaical Law became both unnecessary, and damnable; mortua and mortifera, dead and deadly: since we see some part thereof observed by the Apostles after our Saviour's ascension, and sending the Holy Ghost? 36. But at least, though you have erred in the first part of your example, concerning the evidence of Scripture, that the keeping of the Mosaical Law is not necessary to salvation; yet you have undoubtedly proved your purpose in the other part, That good works are necessary to salvation. 37. To this I answer: It is strange you should hold this point of the necessity of good works to salvation, to be so evident in Scripture, that every one who believes the Scripture hath sufficient means to discover, and condemn the contrary heresy; seeing you know the common Tenet of Protestants, that it is impossible to keep the commandments, and the doctrine of many of them, that all our actions are sins. Can the breach of the commandments, be a good work? Or can sinful works be necessary to salvation? That is, can it be necessary to do that which is necessary for us not to do, as every one is obliged not to sinne? How then can you say, the Scripture is clear in this point, since so many of your chiefest brethren must maintain the contrary, and divers of them do in express terms deny good works to be necessary, yea and call it a Papistical error, yea worse than is the Papists Doctrine; as is exactly set down 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 do upon the warrant of evident scripture? 37. And here I am to observe, that (Pag, 157. N. 50.) you having alleged some points as clearly contained in scripture (and in particular, concerning Faith, Repentance, and Resurrection of the body, which we have demonstrated not to be clear without assistance from God's Church, and to be controverted even amongst Protestants) add these remarkable words: These we conceive both true, because the Scripture says so, and Truth's Fundamental, because they are necessary parts of the Gospel, whereof our Saviour says, Qui non crediderit damnabitur. Therefore say I, scripture alone is not clear, even in Fundamental points, which directly overthrows the whole Foundation of Protestants religion. And because here you name expressly the Resurrection of the Body, and not only that all men shall rise again at the last day, as you spoke (Pag. 101. N. 127.) I would gladly know how it is a Resurrection of the Body which never rises again, but another celestial 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 said: Christ did truly rise rgaine from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, where with he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day. 38. You see then, that he hath produced Fundamental points as clear in scripture, which are proved not to be so. Of points not Foundamentall, he chooseth in the same place one example, so pregnant and certain in his conceit, that he hopes we will grant it to be such: namely, that Abraham begat Isaac. But this text is not so clear, as he supposes. For how will he be sure (if we take those words alone) that Abraham was Isaac's Father, and not grandfather, or yet higher? We read in S. Matthew, (1.8.) joram begat Ozias: three Kings being left out. For joram immediately begat Ochozias Ochozias begat joas, joas 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 therefore left out three to wit, Ochosias, joas, 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 supplied and read: Josias begat Jeconias and his brethren: and Jeconias begat Jechonias in the transmigration of Babylon. For now we have only; Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. On the contrary; where (Genes. 11. V 12.) it is said; Arphaxad begat Sale, as the Hebrew and Caldaean text have, both in this place, and also (1. Paral. 1.18. & 24.) the Septuaginta both here, and there put Cainan between. For they say; 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 understand by genuit, he begat, or, fuit Filius, he was the Son, which may have 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, whose natural son Adam was not. But I may seem to have said too much, of such a matter as this, unless it did show clearly, the difficulty of scripture, even in texts, which scarcely seem capable of difficulty. 39 Sixtly: whatsoever effect Protestants yield to Sacraments, at least it is necessary they be maintained and not quite abolished, and taken from the true Church, of which, Protestants teach the right administration of Sacraments, to be an Essential Note. Yea, seeing there want not learned Protestants who hold Baptism to be necessary to salvation, if the scripture be not clear in what concerns this Sacrament, it is not clear in a necessary point as I said. Now the very word Sacrament (taken in this sense) according to Protestants is not found in scripture; yea Socinians teach, that it is an abuse of the word Sacrament to apply it to holy rites. (a) Volkelius Lib. 4: Cap. 22. And in the definition thereof, Protestants cannot agree amongst themselves, nor with us Catholics. Socinians go further, and deny Baptism to be a Sacrament, and teach that all are not obliged to receive it, but that some may be enroled amongst the number of Christians without it; That the church may either leave it of, or at least can compel none to receive it; and in a word, that it is a thing adiaphorous or indifferent. (b) Volkel: Lib. 6. Cap. 14. The Eucharist also they hold not to be a Sacrament: (c) Volkel: Lib. 4. C, 22. that it may be administered by lay persons, (d) Ibidem and receyved by such as are not baptised. (e) Lib. 7. Cap. 14. Other Protestants do not agree about the necessity of Baptism. 40. As for the Matter and Form, of those two Sacraments which they admit; Divers of them expressly teach, that water is not absolutely necessary in Baptism, but that some other liquid thing may serve: and yet the scripture saith (Joan: 3. V 5.) Unless a man be borne again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom 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 word of life. And for the Form; there want not that teach, those words, In the name of the Father etc. not to be necessary. About the Form of the Eucharist, they agree not; some requiring no words at all; other requiring words, but in a far different manner, and meaning, one from another; as may be seen 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 wine is necessary for the Eucharist; though it be evident in scripture, that our Saviour consecrated in bread and wine. As also Beza (Lib: Quest: & Respons: Vol, 3. Theol: Pag: 364.) saith; that it is naevus in Ecclesijs etc. A blemish in those Churches, which use unleavened bread rather than leavened, and savours of Iuda●sme; and yet he affirms, that Christ. first blessed unleavened bread, and instituted this supper at that time when it was not lawful for the jews to use any but unleavened bread And Sadeel (ad Artic: 56. abjurat: Pag: 511.) saith; Christ indeed used▪ unleavened bread. Did Christ that which savours of Judaisme? Christ did institute the Sacraments at supper. By what authority then do they alter these things, if we must stand to scripture alone without the church's tradition and authority? What evident Text can they bring, for these, and the like alterations, as, not first washing feet & c.? And Volkel: (Lib: 4. C. 22.) affirms, that if one cannot drink wine, he may use water without changing the substance of the Lord's supper, as he speaks. 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) saith thus: Is the wine as it should be, representing blood, not sack, white wine, water, or some other liquor? but yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader, I think sit 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 form of words requisite to a Sacrament; Luther (a) To: 2: Wittenberg. Lib: de Captivit: Babylon: Cap: de Baptis: Fol: 75. affirms Baptism to be good with whatsoever words it be ministered, so the same be not in the name of man, but of God. Yea he saith. I doubt not but if one receive (Baptism) in the name of God, although the wicked Minister give it not in the name of God, he is truly baptised in the name of God. Also Brentius (b) In Catheches: Cap: de Bap: and Zwinglius (c) To: 2. Lib: de vera & falsa Religione, Cap: de Baptism: sub finem Fol. 202. And see Zuinglius more plainly To: 2. Lib. de Baptis: Fol: 66 affirm, that no prescript form of words is necessary in Baptism: to omit that Bullinger: (d) in his Decades, Decad. 5. Ser: 6. Pag. 969. paulo post med: and 975. and 976. and 974. doth discourse at large against the necessity of any form of words to be pronounced; And that Bucer (in Matth. C. 26,) teacheth, recital of Christ's words in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not to be necessary; one of their own martyrs john Lassells in his letter Apologetical recorded for the supposed worth thereof by M. Fox (in his Acts and mon● Pag: 678.679.) affirms ehat S. Paul durst not take upon him to say; Hoc est Corpus meum; This is my body, but omitted those words, affirming yet further, that, The Lord jesus said it once for all. Whereupon he maketh the necessity to consist, not in any words pronounced, but in the breaking and giving of bread. Whereunto might be added the agreeable doctrine of Muscolus (e) in Lo: comm: C. de Caen: Dom: Pag: 336. circa med: & post medium. , and the like answerable practice of the reformed Church in Scotland. (f) As appears in the book of the usage of the church of Scotland, printed at Rochel. 1596. (Pag. 189.190.191.192.193. 41. The same I may say of the Form, Matter, and Manner to be used in the Ordination of Bishops, Priests, and others Degrees in the church. All which points being of great importance in God's church which cannot consist without true Governors and Sacraments, and yet not being determinable by scripture alone, as is manifest, both by the thing itself, and by the different and contrary Opinions of learned Protestants concerning them, we must infer, that all things necessary are not evidently contained 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 together divers traditions not contained in scripture, saying; we admit first the Books of Canonical Scriptue as delivered by tradition (what more fundamentall article than this, to Protestants who profess to have 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, somewhat obscurely contained in Scripture. (Mark, that a point contained obscurely in scripture may become evident by explication of the church, as I said in the beginning of this chapter: and mark that he specifyes the chief heads of christian Doctrine.) Fourthly: the continued practice 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 numbereth the Fast of Lent, the Baptism of infants; (of which he says; it is not expressly delivered in scripture, that the Apostles did baptise Infants, nor any express precept there found that they should do so) and observation of our Lord's day, and afterward he confesseth, that many other things there are, which the Apostles doubtiess delivered by Tradition. Covell in his Answer to john Burges (Pag: 139.) affirms the moderate use of the Cross to be an Apostolical Constitution, and in his Examination against the Plea of the innocent, (Cap. 9 Pag. 104.) referreth the terms of Archishops unto Apostolical Ordination. And Whitgift in his Defence &c: affirmeth and proveth the Apostles Tradition of Easter. And Oecolampadiu● affirms the Baptism 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 God's church and her infallible Traditions, or yield to the pernicious Doctrine of Anabaptists. Dr. Tailor 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 lie (§. 19) which are these, [Pag: 100] Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters, and the whole flock; yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance, and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is. For, for that in the new Testament we have no precept, and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon 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 have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty) we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festival less than an apostical ordinance, and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed. Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance, and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried, and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles; and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of scripture enforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us, as we do of baptising infants upon them, if we speak of immediate Divine institution, or of practise Apostolical recorded in scripture, and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists, was forced to fly to Apostolical traditive ordination, and therefore the institution of Bishops, must be served first, as having fairer plea, and clearer evidence in scripture, than the baptising of infants, and yet they that deny this, are by the just anathema of the Catholic Church, confidently condemned for Heretics. Of the same consideration are divers 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 said [Hoc facite, Do this] then why may not every Christian man there represented, do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do? If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church, why then do all communicate? Or what place, or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels, limiting [Hoc facite, id est, benedicite] to the Clergy, and extending [Hoc facite, id est, accipite & manducate] to the Laity? This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H: Church, and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be, by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected. To these I add the Communion of Women, the distinction of books Apocryphal, from Canonical, that such books were written by such Evangelists, and Apostles, the whole tradition of scripture itself, the Apostles Creed, the feast of Easter (which amongst all men that cry up the Sunday-Festivall for a Divine institution, must needs prevail as Caput institutionis, it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated.) These and divers others of greater consequence (which I dare not specify for fear of being misunderstood) rely but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy (though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance) and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity, which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the Faith of a Christian, whose Master is truth itself. Thus far the Doctor: in whom, beside other divers points for our purpose, it is remarkable, that he affirms the denial of the baptising of infants to be an Heresy, and yet that the contrary truth is not contained in scripture; which therefore cannot be said to contain all necessary points of Faith. 43. Seaventhly: it is a prodigious kind of thing, that Protestants would make men believe, that all necessary points are evident in scripture, and yet for understanding scripture prescribe certain necessary Rules or Means which it is evident few can possibly observe, and no less evident by the confession of our adversaries, that being observed, they are not sufficient; and consequently even by those Means assigned for understanding scripture, we know that scripture is not evident, in all necessary things; which is a point well to be noted. Sanchius de sacra scriptura (Col: 409.) saith: The Holy scripture, in those things which are necessary to be known for salvation, is so clear, that it may easily he understood of all those who are endued with God's spirit, and who read it attentively and daily, and understand the words and phrases thereof. Easily? Doth not this contradict all the former words, which require knowledge hard to be gotten, and pains not easy to be taken? The scripture (saith this Protestant) is clear in all necessary points, to all that are endued with the spirit of God. But if they be endued with the spirit of God, they are presupposed to have true Faith for points necessary to be known; and then I ask fromwhence had they that Faith, without which, scripture is not clear? Not from scripture, because it is prerequired to the understanding of scripture. Therefore from some other means, which certainly can be no other, but the Church and tradition. Besides this, that is, beside the spirit of God, yea and true Faith, they must read scripture daily and attentively, and must penetrate the words and phrases, which is so far from being easy to be done, that he assigns no fewer than nineteen Rules for doing it, whereof 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 points necessary to de believed. Scharphius assigns twenty Rules (in cursu Theologico de scrip: controvers: 8. Pag: 44.) which unless they be kept, we cannot but err. But perhaps all these Rules are easy. judge of the rest by these To know original languages; also to discuss the words, phrases, and Hebraisms: to confer the places which are like, and unlike to one another; to ask advise, and to help once self with interpreters etc. 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 observe those Rules, without which, these men confess, that scripture cannot be understood? 44. And now to prove that I also spoke truth, in saying, it is evident that these Rules though they were observed, are not sufficient to make scripture clear 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 extremely blind, or malicious, or dissemble and spea●● against the belief of their own hart. Doth not I'll. say, (Preface N. 30.) that there is no more certain sign that a point is not evident, than that honest, and understanding, and indifferent men, and such as give themselves liberty of judgement after a mature consideration of the matter, differ about it. But yet I will prove it out of a Protestant, who in general brings unaswerable arguments against the pretended evidence of scripture, and proves in particular, that the Means of Rules assigned by Protestants, to understand the scripture, are not sufficient to convince or make evident the the sense thereof. I mean Dr. Jeremy Taylor in a Discourse of the liberty of Prophesying, printed An: 1647. He sect: 3. endeavours to prove in general, the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from scripture, First by consideration of scripture itself in regard of different copies, translations etc. By the many senses of scripture when the Grammatical sense i● found out: for, there is in very many scriptures a deuble sense, a literal, and a spiritual: and both these senses are subdivided. For, the literal sense is either natural or Figurative: and the spiritual is sometimes Allegorical, sometimes Anagogical; nay, sometimes there are divers literal senses in the same sentence. This, I say, first he proves in general; and then [Sect: 4.] directly to my purpose, he proves that the means which are wont to be assigned for interpreting scripture are but uncertain. Thus he discourses: First, sometime the sense is drawn 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 ascertain me, that I make my reference true, by drawing the relation to such an antecedent, to which I have a mind to apply it, another hath not &c: Secondly: An other great pretence is the conference of places; which he says 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, than there is nothing which may be more abused by wilful people, or may more easily deceive the unwary, or that may amuse the most intelligent Observer. This he proves by some examples, and says, that it is a fallacy a posse ad esse affirmatiuè: from a possibility of being, to an affirmative being: that is, because a word is sometimes used in such a sense, therefore it must always 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 mind to defend: and any man that reads any controversyes of any side, shall find 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 than they had got this trick; and he is angry at it. Neque enim putare debemus, esse praescriptum, ut, 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, unless you can first give a certain 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 dream, that any such certain Rule can be given? 46. Thirdly: Tailor proceeds; Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason. This he impugns at large: and saith, it is with reason, as with men's tastes. When a man doth speak reason, it is but reason he should be heard; but though he may have the good fortune, or the great abilities to do it, yet he hath not a certainty, no regular infallible assistance, no inspiration of Arguments and deductions: and if he had, yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason, unless other men's understandings were of the same air, the same constitution and ability, they cannot be prescribed unto, by an other man's reason; especially because such reasonings as usually are in explication of particular places of Scripture, depend upon minute circumstances and particularityes, in which it is so easy to be deceyved, and so hard to speak reason regularly and always, that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceyved. I may say, that, Faith being above Reason. Reason must submit to Faith, and not Faith be subject to Reason. For, as S. Bernard excellently says [Ep: 190.] What is more against Reason, than that one should strive to go beyond Reason by force of Reason? 47. Fourthly: Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogy of Faith. This he saith is but a chimaera, a thing in nubibus, which varyes like the right hand and left hand of a pillar. For, if by the analogy of Faith be understood 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 have no more relation to any Article in Creed than they have 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, than 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 man's Faith, than he is to expound according to the analogy of mine. And this is it that is complained on of all sides ●●at over-value their own opinions. Scripture seems so clearly to speak what they beheve, that they wonder all the world does not see as clear 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 understanding, which have great dependence on several complexions, affections, education, and other prejudices, no wonder if one man judge 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 says that the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek are easy and certain to be understood, and that they are hard in Latin and English. The difficulty is in the thing however it be expressed, the least in the Language. If the Original Languages were our mother tongue, Scripture is not much the easier to us; and a natural Greek or a jew can with no more reason, nor authority, obtrude his interpretations upon other men's consciences, than a man of another Nation. 49. And [Num: 6.] he saith in general: That, all these ways of interpreting Scripture, which of themselves are good helps, are made either by design, or by our infirmities, ways of intricating and involving Scriptures in greater difficulty, because men do not learn their doctrines from Scripture, but come to the understanding of Scripture with preconceptions and ideas of doctrines of their own; and then no wonder that Scriptures look like Pictures, wherein every man in the room believes they look 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 meat becomes the matter of sickness: And the mischief is, the wit of man cannot find a remedy for it; for there is no rule, no limit, no certain Principle by which all men may be guided to a certain and so infallible an interpretation, that he can with any equity prescribe to others to believe his interpretations in places of controversy or ambiguity. Osiander in his confutation of the Book which Melancton wrote against him, observes, that there are twenty several opinions concerning justification, all drawn from the Scriptures by the men only of the Augustan Confession. There are sixteen several opinions concerning original sin; and as many definitions of the Sacraments as there are sects of men that disagree about them. This makes good what I said above, that the Protestants cannot agree in the very definition of Sacraments. 50. Lastly, (Num: 8.) he concludes thus. Since, those ordinary means of expounding scripture, as seurching the Originals, conference of places, parity of Reason, and analogy of Faith, are all dubious, uncertain, and veryfallibe: He that is the wisest, and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason, will be very far from confidence; because every one of these andmany more are like so many degrees of improbability and uncertainty all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries and amidst so many difficultyes. 51. I have thought good to set down this discourse, as being unanswerable, and making directly for us 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 give to his Third Section this Title (Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture, in Questions not simply necessary, not literally determined) yet it is minifest thathiss reasons either prove universally of all articles, or prove nothing at all: especially if we consider, that the most necessary mysteries of Christian Faith, are also most sublime: and therefore no wonder, if having in the title to his Third Section, mentioned the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from scripture in questionns not simply necessary, in the proofs and prosecution of his reasons, he is silent of any such distinction, and shows not in all, or any one of his reasons of the difficulty and uncertainty of the sense of scripture, any difference between necessary and unnecessary points, nor is any man able to do it, upon any solid ground, as will appear 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 remain difficulty and uncertainty, unless he were content to acknowledge the authority of the Church for determining some particular meaning of Scripture, as the literal sense thereof. Besides, unless he can give us a catalogue of questions simply necessary (which Chilling: says, is impossible to be done, and those Protestants who have gone about to do it, could never agree amongst themselves, 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 said, the difficulty arises from diversity of editions, translations, senses, literal or spiritual, natural or figurative; the insufficiency of conferring places; of parity of reason; analogy of faith; consulting the originals. And who can deny, but that these reasons hold, as well in necessary, as unnecessary points? Where will he find any text of scripture (evident, and not subject to any one of those difficultyes, which he hath urged to prove the difficulty of scripture) affirming that those means and helps, are insufficient for unnecessary points, sufficient for necessary? If he answer: that if they be not clear, they cannot be necessary: I reply; This is not to prove out of Scripture, but by reason: and he hath told us, that it is with reason as with men's tastes: and in our present question, his reason willbe petitio principij, a supposing, that all necessary points are evidently contained in Scripture. For if this be not supposed, it willbe soon answered, that we may be obliged to believe articles of Faith, by means of the Church or tradition, though they be not in particular, evidently contained in scripture. Doth not the prime Prorestant Sanchius by me cited above, affirm, that the said means, or nineteen Rules prescribed by him, are required for finding out the sense of Scripture in those things which are necessary for salvation? Therefore if these means be doubtful and uncertain, we cannot from Scripture alone receive sufficient certainty, to believe with an act of Faith, even things necessary to salvation. And indeed, all the means which Protestants prescribe, being humane actions and endeavours, wherein every man is subject to error; this only remains certain, that they can yield us no certainty. A deduction so clear, that Whitaker (de Eccles. Controu. 2. Q. 4. P. 221.) says plainly. Such as the means are, such of necessity must be the interpretation: but the means of interpreting dark places are uncertain, doubtful, and ambiguous, therefore it cannot be, but that the interpretation also must be uncertain; than it may be false etc. 53. Eightly: Protestants require for interpretation of Scripture, the spirit of God, as we have seen above, and [2. Pet. 1. V 20.21.] it is said; No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired with the Holy Ghost. And therefore 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 attain to the knowledge of points necessary by our own natural forces: which yet we might do, if reading alone could suffice us for understanding the true meaning of all necessary mysteries 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 things as are necessary to salvation, are so very plain, that the most unlearned believers, by the reading thereof, may be instructed to piety: and heretics, though not learned, may clearly enough be confuted by them: and he holds the affirmative part. And so Protestants must either confess themselves to be Pelagians, if they hold Gods special grace and spirit not to be necessary for understanding scripture aright; or if they acknowledge the necessity of such particular Grace, they must yield, that scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be known. Which argument may be yet enforced 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 giuen by the spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge; to another, interpretation of languages, to another; prophesy &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 than is the gift of healing and miracles, and therefore we can only be certain that it is in the Church, not in any private person. Therefore the Scripture is not so evident, that we can be sure of the meaning thereof, by the interpretation of any, but of the Church. 55. Which finally Protestant's must either acknowledge, or else pinfold themselves in an inextricable circle and labyrinth; in this manner: Scripture is evident only to those who are endued with the spirit of God and seeing S. john (joan: 1 Cap: 4. V 1.) warns us. believe not every Spirit, but prove the spirits if they be of God, it follows that Protestants must have some means to try this spirit, before they can believe it; which means with them must be only Scripture: and therefore they must know the meaning of the Scripture, before they can make use of that spirit, by which they are to know the meaning of the Scripture. Therefore 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 shallbe necessary for attaining the meaning of Scripture, which meaning of Scripture must be attained before we can use this spirit. Therefore this spirit is necessary, and not necessary for understanding Scripture, which we must understand 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 understand Scripture. And in a word, the spirit must depend on the understanding of Scripture, and the understanding of Scripture must depend on the spirit; and the final conclusion will be, that the same thing must depend on itself, the spirit on spirit, Scripture on Scripture: and so both of them must exist both before, and after, themselves. Neither is there any means to avoid this Circle, except by having recourse to God's visible Church, whose spirit needs no trial of men; since God himself hath given a public Approbation of Her spirit, by obliging all to obey Her voice, and to receive even Scripture itself, from Her Authority and Testimony. 56. Ninthly: I now urge more in particular, that which heretofore I touched in general: that they can allege no evident Text of Scripture, declaring any command that we must have recourse to Scripture alone, for knowing the Objects or Articles of Faith: and yet if the End which is Faith, be necessary, the only Means (that is Scripture) to attain that End, must also be necessary: nor can they produce any evident Text, proving that from Scripture alone, we can learn all points necessary to be believed. 57 The clearest and most effectual way to prove the truth of this my Assertion, willbe to examine such Texts as Protestants are wont to allege, and to show how little they make to their purpose. They produce these words (Deut: 4. V 2.) You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Search the Scriptures. (joan: 5.39.) these things are written, that ye may believe. (joan: 20.31.) And that of the Beraeans: daily searching the scriptures. (Act: 17. V 11.) we have the Prophetical 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 work. (2. Timoth: 3.16.) 58. Now these Texts, are so far from proving evidently what is intended, that it is evident, that neither these, nor any other can be alleged, to prove, that men are obliged to have recourse to scripture alone. The reason is; because whatsoever can be alleged out of the old testament, cannot be so understood, as to exclude the living Guides granted to that Church, as Moses, the Prophets, and writers of Canocall scripture: nor out of the new testament to exclude the Apostles, and preachers of the Gospel. Therefore no scripture can be so understood, as to oblige us to consult scripture alone. Nay out of this ground I further infer, that, seeing at that time 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 affirm, 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 us under pain of danation only to believe the verityes therein (in scripture) contained, and not the divine authority of the Books wherein they are cōtayn●d. By which assertion, he doth not only disoblige men, from having recourse to scripture but also from believing it to be the word of God when the contents thereof can be learned by other means, as they might, while those visible guides were living. Therefore no text can be brought to prove, that men were, or are, obliged to have recourse to Scripture for matters of Faith, though they are bound to believe them to be the infallible word of God, as in due time I will prove against his pernicious doctrine to the contrary delivered in this same page and number. 59 But beside this, there is another fundamental ground of Protestants, which being well pondered, will make it a hard task for them to allege 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 time, we could not be sure that all necessary points were expressed therein. Therefore, do I infer, no scripture could affirm, that scripture contains all necessary points, except that book, yea text, which was written last, and did make up the whole Canon; and all precedent parts of scripture could only speak 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 sufficient for all necessary points. For which prophetical kind of meaning, Protestants do not allege scripture; as for example, that the old Testament did prophecy of every book of the New; or, that one part of the new contains a prophecy of the other parts that were to follow; which to affirm, were groundless and ridiculous. And who can say, that the scripture which was written last, affirms the sufficiency of scripture alone? If Protestants have any such assurance, let them show us, in that last book, or text, the words which evidently contain such a meaning and asseveration. For, on that last text alone they must rely, for the reasons alleged, that, without that text the Canon was not complete. Add yet further, that, it being not certain what part of Canonical scripture was the last, they cannot with certainty allege any one text of the whole Bible, to prove 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 Canonical, or no; for example, the Apocalypses, 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 us any proof from the old Testament, since it is impossible to be done out of the new, as hath been proved. 60. Tenthly. Although what I have said, were sufficient to stop all attempts of Protestants, to allege any text of scripture for their purpose; yet for the greater satisfaction of the reader, in a matter of such moment mēt, I will, as I said above, examine the texts, usually alleged, andshew, that they are neither evident, nor probable, nor pertinent. Whereby I shall not only confute all their proofs, but jointly bring a convincing argument, for us, against them; whose Doctrine must needs fall, if they be demonstrated, to fail in their allegation of scripture for this main point. And it is to be observed, that Chilling: seems in effect to acknowledge, that it is hard to allege any effectual text for his purpose, while he is very sparing in producing scripture, but makes perpetually use of Topical arguments and discourses; as for example, if scripture were not evident in all things necessary, we could not be obliged to believe them, and the like, being indeed conscious, that the places of scripture commonly alleged 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 jews were obliged to believe, or practise, were contained evidently in scripture alone, as if the writing of Moses did exclude the ordinary living Rule, permanent amongst the jews, to wit the Definition of the Priest, of which it is said (Deut: 17.8.) If thou perceive that the judgment with thee be hard and doubtful, &c: or as if it excluded Moses 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 Moses, but Esdras, or joshua, disciple and successor to Moses, as appears by the same (Chapter, V 5.6.) where the death and burial of Moses is described and it is said; (Deuter: 34.6,) no man hath known his sepulchre until, this present day: or the commands which the Prophets sometime gave, as, (1. Reg. 15.) or some solemnities or Feast instituted for thanksgiving for some benefit: or, as if after those words of Moses, and after his death no scripture could be written by joshua and other Canonical writers, amongst the jews in the Old, or Christians in the New Law, for fear of transgressing, You shall not add to the word which I speak unto you. Therefore ethose words, You shall not add to the word &c: must have some other meaning, than these men would violently give them against the express words themselves, which are not, You shall not add to the writing which I writ to you, but, to the word which I speak to you; which, if we respect the letter, signify rather unwritten tradition, than any thing written in scripture. And that the Jews had unwritten traditions, see Brierly (Tract: 1. sect. 4. subdivis: 6.) citing both ancient Fathers, and Protestant writers: and so this text makes for tradition; against the objectours rhemselves. Besides; You shall not add to the word, may signify contrary to it, by declining to the right, or left hand, as is said [Cap: 5. V 32.] especially such as might bring men to the worship of Beelphegor (as it follows V 3.) or of some other new Deity or Idol. For, Moses in all this Chapter, and frequently in deuter: intends to exclude new Gods, and Rites. Thus the Hebrew all, 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 evangelise aliud praeter id quod ipse evangelizavit; praeter, beside; that is contra, against: for he treats of those who went about to yoyne Christianity with judaisme. This appears 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: keep the commandments of your God, which I command you. Which latter words signify; that to add, or take away from God's word, is to break, or do something against his commandments, and not to do something which is not commanded, so it be not forbidden, and otherwise may tend to God's glory: Otherwise the jews added many things to the Law of God, as, engravings, the ornaments of the temple: Days of lots, (Esth. 9.31.) the Feast of fire given; the Feast of the Dedication etc. All which considered, who doth not see what a strange Argument this is: Moses saith to the jews, thou shall not add to the word which I speak. Therefore nothing must be believed or practised by jews; or Christians, which is not expressed in writing, or scripture; yea in the scripture of the old Law: and what is this but to condemn the Law of Christ? 63. Toar those words, search the Scriptures, spoken by our Saviour to the Jews (Joan. 5.39.) I answer: first; if they will have their purpose, they must add, solas, earch the Scriptures alone, (as Luther, in the Text, where it is said (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 contain all things necessary to salvation. 2. Indeed they cannot add, solas, nor can any understand Search the Scriptures, in that sense of taking Scriptures alone, since our B, Saviour in that Chapter of S. john, to prove that he was the Messiah, alleges the testimony of S. John Baptist: and a greater testimony than John, the very works which I do (miracles) and also the voice of his Father. (Matth. 3.17.) Therefore our Saviour beside Scriptures, allegeth other very powerful means; the voice of John; the voice of works; the voice of his eternal Father. 3. This Text speaks only of one Article of Faith, to wit, that Christ was the Messiah, and it is no good consequence; the scriptures are clear in one point of Faith: rherfor they are clear in all. 4. Even for this one Point he doth not absolutely command them to search the scriptures, as necessary of themselves, but only ex hypothesi. For, upon supposition that they did not believe for the other threefold testimonies, and that they believed scripture to be the word of God, than it only remained, that they should search the scriptures, and so our Saviour saith, search the scriptures, and expressly adds, (Joan. 5.39.) For you think in them to have life everlasting; showing that he speaks, as it were ad hominem: seeing you, o Jews, will not believe the testimony of John, of Miracles, and of my Eternal Father, at least search the scriptures, in which you think to have life everlasting, and the same are they that give testimony of me. As we Carholikes may say to Heretics, who reject the Authority of God's Church, and Tradition, and admit only scripture; since you will not believe the voice of the Church, and yet believe scriptures, search the scriptures, which give testimony of the Church. And yet it were strange, if Protestants should, from such our daily speech infer, that we believe no other Rule, or Judge besides scriptnre alone: and I hope Protestants will not deny but that the testimony of S. John, our Saviour's Miracles, and the voice of his Eternal Father, were sufficient to oblige men to believe that our Saviour was the Messiah, though they had not searched the scriptures; as we see Infidels to be converted to the Faith of Christ by Miracles, and other Arguments of Credibility, without help of scripture, which they believe not to be the word of God, except by force of those Arguments: and I suppose they will grant that our Saviour's Miracles, and those other Arguments which he used, were more forcible than any can be brought by any Apostolical man, for the conversion of Gentiles. So that upòn the matter, this Text, search the scriptures, pondered, as it should be, shows not only that scripture alone is not necessary, but absolutely proves, it is not so, but may be supplied by othermeanes, as S. Irenaeus witnesseth of people that were converted to the Faith of Christ without knowledge of scripture 5. Protestants cannot prove that scrutamini, search, is the imperative mood. S. Cyrill: Lib. 3. in Joan: Cap: 4. holds, that it is of the indicative; and some learned Catholic Divines are of the same mind; yea Beza saith; I agree with Cyrill who clearly warns us that this is to be understood rather by a verb of the indicative: and so our Saviour reprehends the Jews who did search the scriptures and yet did not believe 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 disallows the reading of scripture, but only signify, what they did, and supposing they did so, blames them for not doing it with such a hart and disposition of soul, as to find in them the true Messiah. At least, seeing this exposition cannot be evidently disproved, it is evident, that this text doth not evidently convince, that the scripture alone contains evidently all things necessary to salvation: yea, rather, since those men did read scripture, and yet not believe in Christ, it is a sign, that scripture alone is not so very clear, as to necessitate a man's understanding to the true meaning thereof, without some dispositions on our behalf, of which dispositions, no man being absolutely and evidently certain, he cannot be certainly assured, that he hath attained the right sense by scripture alone, without some other help, as was the preaching, and Miracles of our Saviour and the Testimony of s. John, and of his Eternal Father; and as to us, is the Authority, and voice of God's Church. But if we will follow the other opinion, that our Saviour commanded those men to read the scriptures, it cannot be understood as an absolute command (seeing they had other means more than sufficient, and more effectual than scripture, to beget in their souls a belief that Christ was the Messiah: to wit, Miracles, voice of his Father &c:) but only, as I said, upon supposition, that they by their own fault, not making use of those other means, were obliged to make use of this of scripture; yet so, as they might free themselves from that hypothetical and voluntary necessity, by applying themselves to those other means, for neglect of which, our Saviour reprehends them [V. 38.] His (the Fathers) word you have not remaining in you, because whom he hath sent, him you believe 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 Jews, and Jews so incredulous, that they would neither believe s. John, nor our Saviour Christ, nor the Eternal Father. And if Protestants will imitate those Jews, and reject all Authority of a living Guide, and rely only on scripture, they for finding the true Church, shallbe obliged to search scriptures, by a voluntary culpable necessity, which they ought not to impose upon others, but contrarily, they ought by all possible means, to free themselves from it, by submitting to God's Church, and her Preachers, as so many Nations have done before they knew scripture, and in that case were obliged to attend to other Motives and Means; and so thete is a far more universal and necessary command to Hear 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 contained? This Objection than proves too much, and therefore indeed proves nothing. 7. Scrutamini, search, signify diligence, care, endeavour, labour, which rather declare the difficulty and obscurity, than the facility and evidence of Scripture. For, what great pains and industry can be required, to find out that which is evident? And therefore S. chrysostom saith, that our Saviour remitted the Jew's not to a simple and bare reading of the scripture, but to a very diligent search thereof: For, he did not say; Read the scriptures, but search. And Euthymius saith; He bids them dig more deeply into them, that they may find out those things which are deeply laid up therein like a treasure. How then is it evident, that Scrutamini signify evidently, that all things necessary are clear in scripture alone? And yet we must remember, that our B. Saviour, spoke those words, in order to the greatest and most essential Article of Chritian Faith, to wit, that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah: about which Point, the Eunuch [Act: 8.34.] had need that Philip should interpret Esay unto 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 saith of this Eunuch: So great a lover of the Law and of divine knowledge 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 lips, he was ignorant of him whom he worshipped unknowen, though yet it were he of whom the book did speak. And [Luk, 24.27.] the disciples stood in need that Christ should interpret unto them in all scriptures which were concerning him. What greater Mystery than this concerning Christ himself, and how was it evident in Scripture, when even the Disciples, who were brought up in the School of Christ, under such a Master; whose Divine words they heard, and saw his admirable works and Miracles, did not understand it? How many ways is this Objection against Protestants, and nothing at all against us? 63. Neither will they gain any more by those words (Joan. 20.31.) which Chilling. also objects (Pag. 211. N. 42.) These are written, that you may believe that jesus Christ is the Son of God: and that believing, you may have 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 read S. john's Gospel; but they only declare the end, and occasion, which moved him to write it, namely, to confute the Ebionite Heritiks, and prove that jesus is the son of God; which makes good what I said heretofore, that the Evangelists did not purposely intent to deliver all things necessary to salvation, or make a Catechism, but wrote according to several different occasions, as now we see, that if the Ebionites had not taught that wicked Heresy, S. john had not written his Gospel. And therefore; 2. This Text speaks of one Point only, not of all Articles of Faith. 3. S. john speaks only of his own Gospel, and Chilling. holds it only for probable, that every one of the Gospels contains all necessary Points; and therefore no certainty can be taken from these words, that Scripture contains all things necessary. 4. Even for this one Point of Faith S. john says not, that his Gospel is evident, excluding the Authority of God's Church, and her Pastors; yea he carefully relates our Saviour's words to S. Peter (joan. 21.17.) Feed my sheep: and we see, for want of submitting to such Authority, Chilling. and other Socinians deny that, for which s. john wrote his Gospel, that jesus is the true son of God. 5. In the Text; These things are written that you may believe etc. s. john speaks not of the doctrine taught, but of the Miracles wrought by our Saviour Christ: and therefore we must, if this Objection were of any force, say, that all things necessary to salvation, are evidently contained in that part, or those words, and lines of his Gospel, which precisely recount our Savionrs Miracles: which to imagine, is ridiculous, and absurd. Now that s. john speaks of our Saviour's Miracles, is confessed by Whitaker, as a thing evident (de scripttur. Q. 5. P. 619.) saying; It is evident that the Evangelist speaks of the signs and Miracles of Christ, not of his Doctrine. The Protestant Bible saith, Many other signs truly did jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that jesus is the Christ the Son of God. Where we see, these are written, is referred to the substantive which went before, that is, signs; and it appears also by reflecting on the Antithesis which he makes between not written, and wtitten: Many are not written, which he says of signs (many other signs truly did jesus, which are not written) and then adds: but these are written. Therefore written and not written fall upon the same thing. But not written did relate to signs or miracles; Therefore written must be refered to the same. Chilling: himself [Pag: 211. N. 42.] saith; By, These are written, may be understood, either these things are written, or these signs are written. And then, what consequence is this; S. john wrote some Miracles of our Saviour Christ, that men might believe him to be the son of God: Therefore all necessary Points of Faith are evident in scripture, or in S. john's Gospel taken alone? And he doth but play the Sophister, to deceive some simple Reader when out of S. john's words (in the same Pag. 211. N. 42.) he infers, that, All that which S. john wrote in his Gospel, was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with lively Faith, would certainly bring them to Eternal Life. For, a lively Faith, or a Faith working by Charity, must include not only that one Article, (jesus is the son of God) but all other mysteries of Faith, together with the keeping of all Commandments belonging to Charity, and other Virtues; and it may be said of any least Point of Faith, that it being believed with a lively Faith, will certainly bring the believer to Eternal life; because a lively Faith, involves all other necessary Points 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 Point alone, jesus is the son of God, is not sufficient for salvation, unless it be joined with the belief of other Points belonging both to Faith, and Manners, and with observation of the Commandments; which he will never prove to be evidently contained in the scripture alone, and much less in the Gospel of S. john alone: whereof more shall be said hereafter. In the mean time, take for your Instruction these wholesome words of S: Austin de unit: Eccl: Cap.: 4. Whosoever believe that jesus Christ is the son of God, yet so descent from his Body, which is the Church, as their Communion is not with the whole wheresoever it is spread, but is found separate in some part, it is manifest, that they are not in the Catholic Church. Therefore it is not sufficient for salvation, only to believe, that Christ is the son 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 Hear is no least insinuation of any universal precept to read or search the scriptures, but only a narration of what those men did: and if the fact of some, may be alleged, as a command for all to read the scriptures, why may not the example of others, who believed only by hearing S. Paul, and the other Apostles preach, and seeing them work Miracles, and propose excellent reasons and arguments of Cre●●●bility, be alleged for a command, that men should believe without delaying their conversion, till they read scriptures? Secondly; they did not search the scriptures with any intention to find all the particular mysteries of Christian Faith evidently expressed in them, which is our question, but only that main point which was preached to them by S. Paul, that this is Jesus Christ whom I preach to you. (V. 3) other particular points, they would easily learn by further instruction of the Apostles, being once assured in general, that they were persons worthy of all credit, and Messengers of God. Thirdly; The scriptures which they did search, were the Books of the Old testament; in which, all the necessary particular points of Christian Faith are not evidently contained, since Protestants teach, that all necessary points are contained in scripture, only after the whole Canon of the Bible was ended: yea, the word searching, shows, that even that article of the true Messiah was not evidently contained in the Old testament; but that the finding of it required labour; as in the like case I shown above out of S. Chrissostome, and others, about the word scrutamini, search. Fourtly; Although the search of scriptures, and consonance of them with s. Paul's words, might help the conversion of those men, yet who can doubt, but the preaching, and viva vox, interpretation, and explication of scripture, alleged, urged, and illustrated by S. Paul, did also cooperate, and operate more than the only reading of scriptures, which many did read, and yet were not converted? Which shows their obscurity, even in this Fundamental Article, concerning the Messiah, as we read (Act. 13.27.) Not knowing him, nor the voices of the prophets that are read every sabbath. And (Luc. 24.44.45.) it is said. These are the words which I spoke to you when I was with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms of me. Then he opened their understanding, that they might vnderstand the scriptures. Wherefore the example of the Beroeans is not to the purpose, unless it can be proved, that they red the scripture, without the assistance of such other means, as I have mentioned; and that they found them so ●●ident, that they needed no other help; which certainly is wholly impossible to be proved. Even Cartwright (in whitg. Def. P. 784.) confesseth, that Unless the Lord works miraculously and excraordinarily, the bare reading of the scriptures, without the preaching, cannot deliver so much as one poor sheep from destruction; Therefore scripture is not evident in all necessary Points; 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 rheims testament upon this place wisely observes) they were bound to believe the Apostle, and obey his word, whether he alleged scripture, or no; or whether they could read and understand it, or no. Therefore this example cannot be alleged to prove, that all necessary Points of Faith are evident in scripture alone. Sixtly: This example is wholly impertinent, if the Beroeans did search the scriptures only for their greater comfort and confirmation in the Faith which they had already embraced by the preaching of S. Paul, and not by searching the scriptures; as Cornelius à Lapide holds, and to that purpose alleges the Text itself, which saith: (V. 11.) And these were more noble then 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 said, they receyved the word, and then, were searching the scriptures: And this also is the judgement of the Rheims Testament. 65. Besides the places which I have answered, Protestants are wont to allege the words of the Apocalypse (22. V 18.19.) I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecy of this Book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add upon him the plagues written 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, and out of the holy city, and of these things that be written in this book. But what is this to the purpose of proving, that we are obliged to read, and seek out of the Apocalypse alone (for of it only, S. john expressly declares himself to speak) all necessary Points of Christian Faith; or that it contains evidently all such points in particular? So far was this sacred book from having been written for a Catechism, 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 saith; Tot habet Sacramenta quot verba; Every word is a Mystery. The curse which S. John interminates, falls upon such, as either would add any thing contrary to this book, or corrupt it, by fathering on it some apocryphal writing, or Revelation, or diminish it by some part, or, which is worst of all, quite abolish it as not Canonical, as in old time, Marcionistae, Alogiani, Theodosiani, as witnesseth Epiphan: (Lib. 2. Heres. 51.) did; And Erasmus, Lutherus, Brentius, and Kemnitius, do. The Author of the Commentary upon this book, bearing the name of S. Ambrose, saith; that, He curses Heretics that used to add somewhat of their own that was false, and to take away other things that were contrary to their heresies. But God forbidden, we should interpret Him to exclude the Authority of the Church and lawful Pastors, since S. John himself, as long as he lived, was a Living Rule, or judge for matters of Faith, besides the word written in the Apocalypse, or in other Canonical scripture: and so no scripture was then the only Rule of Faith. Yea, S. John after the said curse, adds two verses more; and Cornel. a Lapide (Quest. Proaemialib. in Apocalypsim) saith: it is clear, that S. John wrote the Apocalypse before he wrote the Gospel: For, this he wrote being returned from his banishment of Patmos, (where he wrote the Apocalyps) as S. Hierome teaches in Catal. script. Ecclesiast. and Eusebius (Lib. 5. Hist. C. 24.) and S. Austin, and Bede, Proaemio in Evangelium S. joannis. Kemnitius also (Exam. Pag. 202.) confesses that S. John wrote his Gospel after the Apocalypse. And Cornel. a Lapide (Proaem. in Epist. 1. S. Joannis) speaking of S. John's three Epistles, saith; It seems that he wrote them about the same time that he wrote the Gospel. By which account, they were written after the Apocalypse. Therefore that curse in the Apocalypse cannot be so understood, as to exclude all other writings after it. 66. But the chiefest place which Protestants are wont to allege 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 work. I answer: First; Speaking in rigour. Profitable; Necessary; sufficient; are things both different, and separable. A thing may be profitable, and not necessary; and a thing may be both profitable, and necessary for some effect, and yet not sufficient alone to produce it. Every line in God's word is profitable, but not every line is either necessary or sufficient. Our question is, whether scripture alone be sufficient. The text alleged, saith only, that it is profitable; but saith not, that it is either, necessary, or sufficient. Therefore (if we consider this place alone) Faith may be conceyved without any scripture, because scripture here is not said to be necessary; and cannot be conceyved by scripture alone, because scripture is not said 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 alleged, (which Protestants bring as sufficient to prove the sufficiency of scripture) scripture is only said to be profitable. Therefore 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 infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the Faith which is in Christ Jesus. By which words it appears, that the scripture of which S. Paul speaks, is the Old testament, which alone, Timothy from his infancy had known, and which could instruct him to salvation. And therefore if this Objection be good, the Old testament, taken alone, willbe sufficient for salvation: and, if it be a good consequence, scripture is profitable to instruct; therefore it is necessary, and sufficient: the Old testament, which could instruct Timothy to salvation, must be necessary and sufficient, even for these times: or, if they were sufficient for those, but not for these our times, and that it be clear that S. Paul spoke of those times, and only of the Old testament, as is confessed by Henoch Clapham, Aretius, Zwinglius, Hooker, and Ochinus: as may be seen triple Cord. (Chap. 7. Sect, 5.) with what conscience can they apply that text to us, as if the scripture of which that text speaks, did signify the scriptures both of the Old, and New testament? Nay, seeing S. Paul wrote that Epistle to Timothy about forry years before the Canon of scripture was perfited, and that Protestants affirm that a living judge was necessary till the Canon was complete, it follows, that the text they allege, cannot signify, that at that time, the scripture alone was either necessary (because there was then a living judge which could determine all Controversyes) or sufficient, (because the Canon was not finished) And therefore although it were granted that the Old Testament (which was perfited) had alone been evident in all necessary points, and thereby sufficient for the Jews, 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 Book, N. 14. Pag. 43.) saith: When the Apostle affirmed unto Timon 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 unto us which live since the publication of the New. Mark how this great man amongst Protestants, affirms, that S. Paul speaks only of the Old scripture, and that this alone is not sufficient for Christians: which he proves, because the Apostle saith, that those scriptures were able to make Timothy wise through the Faith which is in Christ. (V. 15.) And this appears also by the words of S. Paul saying to Timothy in the same Chapter, (V 10.) But thou hast attained to my doctrine, institution, etc. 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 Master. Where we see, that S. Paul did not send his scholar to Scripture alone, but to his own Institution, Doctrine, and interpretation, and things committed to him by word of mouth, or to scripture taken together with an infallible Living judge: and so the Objection proves what we teach, and overthrows the doctrine of Protestants. 68 Thirdly. Protestants must show, that all things necessary are evidently contained in scripture; and this they must prove, by some evident Text. For, if it be not evident, the matter will still remain uncertain. But this Text, on which they chief rely, is not evident: Therefore it is not sufficient to prove that which they intent, and upon which, the whole Fabric of their Faith depends. The minor (That this Text is not evident) is evidently proved, because it is impossible to show evidently, that profitable, in this Text, signify necessary; or if that were freely granted, it will remain more than impossble to prove, that profitable, or necessary, must in this Text, signify sufficient. For by what Grammar, Logic, or Divinity, can any dream this to be feceable The like I say of the words; All scripture; which they interpret not to signify every part, or Book of Scripture; but the whole body of Canonical scripture taken together▪ whereas Bellarm. de Verbo Dei, Lib: 4. Cap: 10. saith truly: In the judgement of all that understand latin, that which is said of all scripture inspired of God, is of said every book which is inspired of God. Beside, the Apostle by this Universal 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 known from his infancy, was profitable to instruct him to salvation. And therefore as every part of scripture is inspired, so also is it profitable. And this is more clear 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 said that it is inspired, and that it is profitable. Therefore 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 prove, much less to prove evidently, that the words, All Scripture, must be certainly taken in this sense? And yet till they do this, they have 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 unlearned person, but that the man of God may be perfect: whereby is to be understood a Doctor, and Bishop, as Corn: a Lapide affirmeth upon 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 Moses' Deut: 13.1. is called Homo Dei, man of God; and David 2. Paral: 8.14. Now, Timothy was a Doctor, 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 joined with tradition and interpretation of God's Church. A parallel to this of S. Paul, All scripture inspired of God; is the Text of S. Peter (Ep: 2. C. 1. 20.21.) Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For, not of man's will was prophecy brought at any time; but the holy men of God spoke, inspired with the Holy Ghost. If Heretics did confider and practise this primum, first, that all prophecy is not made by private interpretation; For not by man's will, &c: they would not be Heretics, but would see to whom scripture is profitable; not to those who will admit no Guide, nor interpretation, but their own wit and will: to whom it becomes (by their only fault) not profitable, but pernicious, as experience tells us. So far is it from being necessary or sufficient▪ 70. Thus their Chiefest proofs out of scripture, being clearly confuted, it remains demonstrated, that they have no solid proof, that Scripture alone contains all things necessary to Salvation. But yet let us allege some more Arguments to disprove their Tenet. 71. Eleaventhly. Protestants cannot prove out of scripture, that scripture is evident for all necessary points, this alone is sufficient to overthrow their Assertion and Religion. But for the difficulty and obscurity of scripture, we have alleged evident scripture, even in a point most necessary concerning the Messiah, in the example of the Eunuch, and the Apostles themselves: which difficulty is further most clearly testified by S. Peter, who expressly writes thus (2. Pet: 3.15.16.) As also our most dear brother Paul according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you. As also in all Epistles speaking in them of these things, in the which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable deprave, as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition. In which words I observe: First, that as by reason of the hardness of some things in S. Paul's Epistles, men did err, so they did err also in the rest of the scriptures, for the same reason; which shows, that other scriptures contain things hard to be understood. Secondly. That those men did err in necessary points, seeing their errors were cause of their destruction. Therefore the scripture is hard and obscure in necessary matters. For, an error cannot be damnable unless the contrary truth be necessary. The translator of the English bible Ann: 1600. (Preface) avoucheth, that it is, A very hard thing to understand the holy scriptures; and that divers errors, sects, and heresies grow daily for lack of true knowledge thereof. Mark that he speaks of matters of moment, in which to err, is to fall into Heresy. 72. Twelfthly. I take an Argument from these your own words, (Pag. 54. N. 4.) If men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to Scripture, and that only, and would require no more of any man but to do so, it were impossible but that all Controversies, thouch things necessary and very profitable, should be ended: and if others were continued or increased, it were no matter. In which words you seem to extend the sole sufficiency and evidence of scripture to things very profitable. For if these be not evidently contained 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. Therefore a contrario sensu, it imports that Controversyes about things very profitable, be ended. But this saying of yours demonstrates, how little credit you deserve in affirming all things necessary to be evidently contained in scripture alone, since you teach the same of things very profitable, which are so far from being all contained evidently in scripture, that for a convincing Reason for the contrary, we need no other proof then manifest Experience, and contentions of Protestants among themselves, concerning many points which they expressly declare to be of great moment; as for example, the Canon of scripture itself; and, How it is known to be the word of God; the infallibility of Christian Faith; the Eucharist, Predestination; ; universal Grace; Repentance; Definition, necessity, effect of Sacraments; Government of the Church; and other points: and yet in Charity, whose essential Character is to judge and hope the best, as you say (Pag. 34. N 6.) I suppose you will not judge, but that all those your brethren; at least divers of them, do really and sincerely submit their judgements to scripture, and seeing it is manifest, that they do not agree, I see no remedy but that you must confess scripture alone not to be evident, nor sufficient in all things very profitable. If then, even according to your own words above recited, it import that there be some evident, and certain means to end Controversies touching things very profitable, and that this cannot be done by scripture alone, it must require a living Guide. Besides, what evident text of scripture can you produce to prove, that it alone is evident in all things very profitable? And your Reader willbe glad to know what you mean by things very profitable and; whether you intent to distinguish them from things profitable; and whether your meaning be, that scripture alone, is clear for things very profitable, but not for points only profitable: and if you answer affirmatively; than you willbe obliged to inform us, 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 contained in scripture, what not. But it is impossible for you to give any such intelligible, solid, practical distinction, and therefore you cannot affirm, that all very profitable points, are evident in scripture, but not things only profitable. Since then, you cannot say, that all profitable things are evident in scripture (for, that were to affirm that all scripture is clear, there being nothing revealed by God, which is not profitable, and yet who will deny but that the scripture is obscure in some points?) you must be content to conclude, that all very profitable things are not evidently contained in scripture. And further, whereas you join together things necessary, and things very profitable, and assign the selfsame means for ending all controversies concerning those two kinds of things (which is, really and sincerely to submit their judgements to scripture, and that only) seeing this means will not serve for ending all controversies in things very profitable, (as I have showed) it follows, that it is not sufficient to end all controversies concerning things necessary. And if in things profitable, and very profitable, that may seem evident to one, which to another may seem obscure, or even untrue; the same also may happen in things necessary, in regard that all the Rules, and industryes, which Protestants assign 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 God's Church some means 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 Mystical body (especially such a body as the Church of Christ is, instituted by an infinite wisdom, and ordained to the sublime End of Eternal Happiness; toward the attaining whereof, every little advantage and help is not to be little esteemed, and the privation and want thereof, or every error therein, is to be in like proportion, avoided) things profitable taken as it were in general, aught in moral consideration to be judged necessary in such a body, which otherwise would look like a man conceyved with his Essence only, devested of all accidents, and integrant parts: or like to his body endued with necessary parts only, for example, hart and brain, without feet, hands, ears, eyes, and other senses. And therefore it cannot be imagined, but that God hath left means in his Church for declaring truths, and determining Controversyes in profitable points, as occasion shall require. The scripture of itself is most sacred, and effectual to the conversion of sinners, and convincing of Heretics, if it be red with sobriety, and interpreted with submission of our understanding to God's Church. Otherwise, Experience shows, 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 submit their judgements, and will, to some infallible Living Guide. For this cause also their Faith and Religion is sterile and barren, as being deprived of God's blessing for the conversion of nations to Christ, foretold by the Prophets, as a Privilege 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 devils, (Act. 19.15.) yea contrarily, the devil so prevailed against them that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (V. 16.) Even so the scripture out of the Church, is neither effectual for concord among Christians, nor for the conversion of Infidels to Christ. 74. 14. What I have said about the necessity of profitable things, considered as it were in general, and consequently, of some means to determine controversyes concerning them, may be confirmed by a discourse of yours (Pag. 9 N. 6.) where you say; We are bound by the love of God, and love 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 us (Matth. 5.19:) That he that shall break one of his least Commandments (some whereof you pretend are concerning venial sins, and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation) and shall so teach men, shallbe called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. And [Pag: 277. N. 61.] you teach, that, God hath promised such an assistance, as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all, not only necessary, but very profitable Truth, and guard us from all, not only destructive, but also hurtful, errors. Which words are directly against yourself, whom we have heard saying; That, if controversyes touching things not necessary, or not very profitable, were continued or increased, it were no matter: Whereas here you say of things any way profitable, that by the love of God, and love of Truth, and obligation of conscience, and under pain of being the least in the kingdom of Heaven, (that is, of being excluded from the kingdom of Heaven, according to S. chrysostom, 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 zeal indeed, to maintain, that, if debates concerning them, could not be ended, but continued or increased, it were no matter! Do you not through your whole Book teach, that all errors against revealed truths, are breaches of God's command, and are in themselves damnable, and will effectually prove such, if ignorance do not excuse, or a general Repentance do not obtain pardon for them? How then is it no matter, if they remain undecided, or that there be no means to decide them? Is it no matter whether one by breaking one of God's commandments, be lest in the kingdom of Heaven? As for your Parenthesis, that we pretend, some of the commandments to be concerning venial, sins, the keeping whereof is not necessary to salvation; I say, it is either untrue, or impertinent. For, if you mean, that we pretend some error against any least revealed Truth, sufficiently proposed, to be a venial sin, it is very untrue. You know, that Cha: Ma: doth teach the contrary through his whole work, and thereon grounds the main scope of his Book: That, of two, disagreeing in Points of Faith, or Objects revealed by God, and sufficiently propounded, one commits a deadly sin, and without repentance cannot be saved. If you mean only in general, that some commands oblige only under a venial sin, your saying is impertinent to a matter, in which the least sin committed by disbelieving any Point sufficiently proposed as a divine Revelation, is deadly, as I have declared, and you often, and purposely grant. Yea further; how can it be said, that some of the least commandments of which our Saviour speaks, are concerning venial sins? seeing our Saviour affirms, that, whosoever shall break one of his least commandments, and shall so teach men, shallbe called the leastin the kingdom of Heaven, if those words signify an exclusion from Heaven? Or, if this exposition please you not, but that you will have them understood of venial sins, than you must explicate, how our Saviour could say, he that shall break one of his Commandments obliging only under a venial sin, shallbe least in the kingdom of Heaven, seeing all men break such commands, by committing venial sins, and so there shallbe no comparison or contradistinction of least or great, but all must be reckoned amongst the least. Besides; you must reflect, that our Saviour speaks of him that shall break one of his least commandments, and shall so teach men. Now, though it be but a venial sin to break a commandment, which obliges only to abstain from a venial sin; yet, to teach, that it is lawful to break any commandment, even concerning venial sins, is a great and deadly sin, as being an error against Faith: As for example, to lie or wittingly to utter an untruth, ossiciocè, or jocose, without prejudice unto any, is but a venial sin: yet to believe, and much more to profess and teach, that it is no sin to lie, were a grievous deadly sin of Heresy. To what purpose then do you tell us, of our pretending, that some least commandments are only concerning venial sins? But the truth is, I conceive it will be hard to name any writer who doth so often cast himself into labyrinths, and perplexityes, as you do. In the mean time, it appears more and more, how necessary it is, that there be some living judge for determining Controversyes of Religion, not only in Articles universally, and absolutely, and in all cases, necessary; but also for other Points, which by occasion of emergent heresies, or for avoiding contentions, and danger of Schisms, or other causes, may necessarily require to be determined: And that, things profitable, taken as it were in general, are necessary to be believed in God's Church, as I have declared above. 75. Which truth is yet strongly proved by other words of yours in the same (Pag. 9 N. 7.) where, about holding errors not necessary, or not fundamental, 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 errors, though it did not merit, might yet occasion damnation. As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the fear of Purgatory, and the doctrine of Purgatory the fear of Hell, as you well know it does too frequently. So that though a godly man might be saved with these errors, yet by means of them, many are made vicious, and so damned. By them, I say, though not for them. No godly Layman who is verily persuaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the use of your Latin service, shall be damned, I hope, for being present at it; yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices understood, 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 have been saved. Besides; though the matter of an Error may be only something profitable, not necessary, yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sin. As not to regard venial sins, is in the doctrine of your Schools, mortal. last: as venial sins, you say, dispose men to mortal; so the erring from some profitable, though lesser, truth, may dispose a man to errors in greater matters. As, for example: The belief of the Pope's infallibility is, I hope, not unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it: yet if it be a falsehood (as most certainly it is) it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to believe Antichrist, if he should chance to get into that See. These be your words; to which I may add what you have (Pag. 388. N. 6.) where you say to your adversary: Whereas you say, it is directly against Charity to ourselves, to adventure the omitting of any means 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 help or conduce to my salvation, that may make the way to it more secure, or less dangerous. And therefore if the errors of the Roman Church do but hinder me in this way, or any way endanger it, I am in Charity to myself bound to forsake them, though they be not destructive of it. And, (Pag. 278. N. 61.) you say: If I did not find in myself a love and desire of all profitable truth: If I did not put away idleness, and prejudice, and worldly affections, and so examine to the bottom all my opinions of divine matters, being prepared in mind to follow God, and God only, which way soever he shall lead me; if I did not hope, that I either do, or endeavour to do these things, certainly I should have little hope of obtaining salvation. What could have been said more effectually, to prove the necessity of some infallible Means to decide controversyes even in things only something profitable, (as you speak.) For, out of these your own words it will be demanded, whether it be no matter, that such points 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 errors in those matters, though it did not merit, might yet occasion damnation; and by the means of them, many are made vicious, and so damned: and because the want of that devotion which the truths contrary to those errors, 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 have been saved; since also, though the matter of such errors may be only something profitable, not necessary, yet the neglect of them may be a damnable sin. (And I pray you, what greater neglect then to hold and write as you do, that if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased, it is no matter?) since also erring from some profitable, though lesser truth (here is no mention of necessary, or very profitable truth) may dispose a man to error in greater matters; since finally it is against the virtue of charity to ourselves, not only to adventure the omitting of any means 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 less 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 us to infer the necessity of a living infallible judge, seeing all profitable points 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 contained in scripture, they could not be necessary, since we speak not of necessary, but only of profitable, and something profitable, and lesser truths, to use your words:) And also because experience shows, that Protestants do not agree, nor have any infallible certain means to bring them to an agreement, concerning such points. 77. But here is not an end of the advantages you give us against yourself, adding greater strength to this Argument. For, (Pag: 277. N. 61.) You teach, that such an assistance is conditionally promised us as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all, not only necessary, but very profitable truth, and guard us from all not only destructive, but also hurtful Errors. And afterwards speaking of a Church which retains fundamental 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 give her sufficient assurance, that the neglect of such truths is not damnable? Besides, who is there that can put her in sufficient caution, that these Errors about profitable matters, may not according to the usual fecundity of error, bring forth others of a higher quality, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine 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 avoiding only Fundamental heresies, if in the mean time she be negligent of others, which, though they do not plainly destroy salvation, yet obscure, and hinder, and only not block up the way to it? Which, though of themselves and immediately they damn no man, yet are causes and occasions that many men run the race of Christian piety more remissly, than they should, many defer their repentance, many go on securely in sins, and so at length are damned by means and occasion of their Errors, though not for them. And [Pag: 218. N. 49.] you say, I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errors even of some Protestants, unconsiderable things, and matters of no moment. For, the truth is I am very fearful, 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 saved with them, yet) are too frequent occasions of our remissness and stackness in running the race of Christian Profession, of our deferring Repentance and Conversion to God, of our frequent relapses into sin, and not seldom of security, in sinning; and consequently, though not certain causes, yet too frequent occasions of many men's damnation. And [Pag: 280 N. 66.] Capital danger may arise from errors though not fundamental. And how can an inanimate writing declare, for all variety of circumstances, when such danger is particularly to be feared? 78. From these your say I gather 2. things: the one, how dangerous Errors are, in matters belonging to Faith, though they concern only profitable Points. The other: That God hath promised an assistance sufficient to lead us 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 Means to avoid Errors against profitable Truth: And that you speak very irreligiously in saying, That if controversyes concerning them be continued and increased, it is no matter. From the second, I frame this demonstrative Argument: If God hath promised an assistance for attaining the knowledge of profitable Truths, he hath not failed to leave some Means whereby, we using our best endeavours, may certainly attain that knowledge by those Means. But this means cannot be scripture alone, the interpretation whereof remains uncertain, even though we use all the Rules prescribed by Protestants, as we have proved, and they confess. Therefore scripture alone cannot be that Means whereby, we using our best endeavours, may attain the knowledge of profitable truths. Therefore we must have recourse to an infallible living judge. And now I beseech the reader to consider how unreasonable and unconscionable a thing it is First, to avouch a very great danger of being damned, unless one come to the knowledge, not only of necessary, but also of profitable points; and that, God hath promised sufficient help and assistance to attain such a knowledge, and yet. Secondly, that it is impossible for us to find, or use, any certain means, which God hath left for that end of knowing things not only necessary, but also profitable. This contradiction, or inconvenience, cannot be avoided, except (as I said) by acknowledging, and submitting to a living judge. 79. Before I leave this point, I must not omit to touch some inconsequent say of yours, and then go forward. You confess (Pag: 277. N. 61.) that, Dr. Potter affirms, that, God hath promised absolutely, that there shallbe preserved to the world's 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 Doctor, as you do against us, and ask him; whether that company of Christians can resist God's motions, and helps whereby they are preserved in the belief of things necesary? As also, how do you defend the Doctor, since you do not hold it absolutely certain, but only hope that there shallbe such a company of Christians to the world's end; whereas the Doctor alleges, and relies 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 do. Surely this is a point of greatest importance, and more than only profitable, and scriptures speak clearly enough for the perpetuity of God's Church, and yet you two do not agree therein; which shows, how impossible it is to decide controversyes by scripture alone. 80. Another saying of yours will, I believe, hardly be defended from a contradiction. For, (Pag: 277. N. 61) having spoken of Errors 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 error to be damnable in itself, must consist in this, that it opposes some truth revealed by God, which is intrinsecè matum, essentially evil, a deadly sin, against the will and Command of God, and therefore damnable in itself and by accident only excused by ignorance, or pardonable by repentance. How then can you say, that, errors against profitable points, are not damnable in themselves, and yet that the errors of the Roman Church are such? But why do I dispute against you by Argument? Hear, I pray you, your own words, [Pag: 290. N. 88] where you say: Fundamental errors may signify, either such as are repugnant to God's command, and so in their own nature damnable, though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not unpardonable; or such as are not only meritoriously, but remedilessely pernicious and destructive of salvation, &c: Behold the reason for which, errors are in their nature damnable! namely, because they are repugnant to God's command; which certainly is common to all errors against Divine Revelation, sufficiently proposed, whether the matter be in itself, great, or small. Besides, it is manifest, that scarcely in any matter of moment, Protestants do so unanimously disagree from us, as that divers of them do not hold with us against their pretended Brethren: and therefore if our errors, as you call them, (which are indeed Catholic verities) be damnable in themselves, theirs also must be such, if they be considered in themselves; which yourself do not deny [Pag: 306. N. 106.] saying; For our continuing in their Communion (you speak of Protestants erring in some Point of Faith) notwithstanding their errors, the justification hereof, is not so much, that their errors are not damnable: as that they require not the belief and profession of these errors, among the conditions of their Communion. Wherefore I must return to conclude, that, in affirming our errors 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 stained with errors. And here I ask, how you can say, [Pag: 278. N. 61.] without impiety and contrariety to yourself, that, heresies not fundamental do of themselves, and immediately, damn no man, seeing you very often profess, that to oppose a thing, revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed for such, is a damnable sin? 81. I will end this Point with noting an egregious falsification of yours about a passage of Ch: Maintained, in these your words: [Pag: 306. N. 106.] directed to Ch: Ma: A sift falsehood is, that we daily do this favour for Protestants, you must mean (if you speak consequently) to judge they have no errors, because we judge they have none damnable. Which the world knows to be most untrue. Thus you. But Ch: Ma: never said, nor dreamt, that Protestants did judge, that their Brethren had no errors, 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 cannot be saved in the Roman Church, by reason of her errors, there is no other remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgement, that her errors are not fundamental, nor damnable. And this is no more charity, than you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors (unless you will hold, that, of contradictory propositions both may be true) and yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their communion, because you hold their errors not to be fundamental. Thus Ch. Ma: And now doth he not expressly suppose, affirm, and speak oferring Protestant's? With what modesty then, can you say, that Char. Ma. would have them judged to have no errors, and not to separate from their pretended Brethren for such errors as are supposed not to be fundamental? Yea He spoke so clearly, of some Protestants their communicating with other of their Brethren, notwithstanding their errors, that you answer as above I have cited you, saying; For our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors, the justification hereof is not so much, that their errors are not damnable, as that they require not the belief and profession of these errors, among the conditions of their communion. 82. No less inexcusably do you falsify His words in the same (Pag. 306. N. 105.) While you allege as His, these words; If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errors, this error or erroneous conscience might be rectified and deposed by judginge those errors not damnable. Which indeed if he had spoken, were nonsense: but his words are those which I have cited. If you grant your conscience to be erroneous, in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church, by reason of her errors, there it no remedy but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgement, that her errors are not fundamental, nor damnable. Is this to say, that Protestants must judge that our Church hath no errors, because the errors are not fundamental? Or is it not directly contrary, that though they did suppose her to have errors, yet, even that supposition standing, they might judge that they might be saved in her communion, because her errors are supposed not to be damnable. 83. In the mean time, it is no small comfort to Catholics, that Protestants confess they believe errors damnable in themselves; whereas we Catholics are infallibly certain, that our Church is not subject to any error in matter of Faith: and though she were, yet even by their confession, we may be saved, by the same means 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 here [Pag: 305. N. 105.] To think that all the learned men of your side are actually convinced of errors in your Church, and will not forsake the profession of them; this is so great an uncharitableness, that I verily believe Dr. Potter abhors it. If our learned men may be excused, much more unlearned 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 Adversaries. 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 prove, that our falsely supposed errors in things profitable, may be occasion of danger, and damnation: Yet, lest perhaps some unlearned person, may apprehend them to contain some great difficulty, I will touch them briefly. The Doctrine of Indulengces, say you, (Pag: 9 N. 7.) may take away the fear of Purgatory: and the Doctrine of Purgatory, the fear of Hell. But, first; how can you object to us as an inconvenience, that the doctrine of Indulgences takes away the fear of Purgatory, since Protestants denying Purgatory, do much more take away all fear of it? 2. What harm is there, in diminishing in our soul the fear of Purgatory, by solid and true means, approved by God's Church, as fasting, prayer, penance, Indulgences &c: Doth not the Apostle admonish us, [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 us even the fear of Hell, and increase our hope of Heaven? For, the greater confidence we have to be saved, the less fear we conceive of being damned. Doth not S. John say (Ep: 1. Cap: 4. V 18.) Charity casteth out fear? 3. Again, it is to be wondered, that any Protestant can object to us the Doctrine of Indulgences as overlarge, and taking away the fear of Purgatory, and so at an easy rate redeeming the temporal punishment, which remains due to our fins, after the fault or guilt is pardoned, since they deny, that any such pain remains after the sin is forgiven, which in the opinion of many of them is forgiven by one Act of Faith, firmly believing that it is forgiven. 4. So many conditions are required for gaining Indulgences, that we cannot be certain thereof, without particular Revelation: and so still we have just cause to fear purgatory, and tremble at the consideration of God's secret judgements. To omit 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 effectual, and incompatible with any affection to any least Venial sin: and yet the temporal punishment due to sin, can never be forgiven till the guilt be perfectly canceled. I say nothing of the pious and penal works, which are wont to be appointed for gaining indulgences, as, confessing, communicating, fasting, praying, visiting Churches, pilgrimages, giving Alms, and other holy exercises, whereby God is glorified, our neighbour edified, and our souls improved in virtue. 85. So that it is not so easy to obtain the effect of indulgences, nor are they so cheap, as some, out of ignorance, or malice, are pleased to imagine; yea and that the Pope gives pardon for all sins, not only passed but also to come; which is a shameless untruth, and falsely lays on us that aspersion, which truly belongs to Protestants, who teach, that, not only sins passed, or present, but also all sins to come are forgiven by Baptism. Kemmit: (In Exam: Concill: Part: 2. Tit: de Baptismo Pag: 80.) saith; Papists have feigned, that the grace of Baptism avails only for remission of sins past, or for remission of those which are found in a man at the time of Baptism. Calvin: (Instit: L. 4. C. 15. §. 3.) We must in no wise believe, that Baptism is conferred only for time past, so that for new sins into which we fall after Baptism, there must be sought other new remedies for pardon by I know not what other Sacraments, as if the force thereof (Baptism) were worn out. But we are to believe, that whensoever we are baptised, we are washed and purged for our whole life. As often therefore as we shall fall into sin, we must renew the memory of Bapisme, and by that remembrance, our soul is to be armed, that it be always certain and secure that our sins are forgiven. And §. 4. As if for sooth Baptism itself were not a Sacrament of repentance. And seeing this (Repentance) is commanded to us for our whole life, the force also of Baptism must be extended as far. Perkins (in Serie Causar: Cap.: 33.) saith: In Baptism being once administered, remission is given not only of sins past, but also present, and to be committed through the whole time of our life. Sanchius (in sua Confession: C. 15.) Baptism is not given for remission only of Original sin, or sins past, but of all, for our whole life. Is not this every easy and large indulgence, and an encouragement to all sin for which so facile a remedy is prepared, even before they be committed? Doth not this indeed take away the fear, not of Purgatory, but of Hell? Which fear of Hell, you do very strangely affirm, to be taken away by the Doctrine of Purgatory, but bring not any reason to prove it; and it is certain no shadow of reason can be brought. Purgatory is ordained to pay the temporal punishment, due after the guilt of sin is forgiven. In Hell eternal torments are to be endured for deadly sin, not repent in this life. Now what consequence is this: One fears the bitterness of pain to be endured in purgatory, though he be sure of salvation, if ever he come to that place: Therefore he fears not Hell, the punishment of deadly sins which he is guilty to have committed, and is not certain whether they be forgiven, which certainty alone can take away the fear of Hell, neither can the fear of Purgatory afford any such certainty. Contrarily one should rather make and approve this consequen: He that fears the lesser punishment or evil, is apt much more to fear the greater. Therefore, he who fears Purgatory, will much more fear Hell; unless he be sure to die in state of Grace, of which none can be sure in this life, without some particular Revelation: and the fear of Purgatory and Hell, may well consist together, as their Causes or objects have no repugnance; to wit, 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 judgements of our understanding, may cause proportionably just fear in our will, the one of Purgatory, the other of Hell. If a malefactor be doubtful, whether be shallbe condemned to death, or only to some other milder punishment, for example, the Galleys, or perpetual imprisonment, or the like, may he not fear 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 fear of Purgatory, by denying it; and of Hell, by their pretended certain Faith, that they are predestinate to eternal Happiness; which certain Faith must needs exclude all fear of the contrary. 86. The want, you say, of that devotion which the frequent hearing of the offices understood, 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 have been saved. But by this manner of arguing, what may not be proved, or disproved, if first one will beg the question, and suppose us to be in error, and then upon remote consequences, rather fetched than found, and wild conjectures and panic fears, infer I know not what dangers? In such manner, as if men were to lead their life according to such a way of direction, they could never be free, from inextricable perplexityes, and run hazard of losing either their wits, or souls. We are in matters concerning our souls, to govern ourselves by such Rules, as God hath revealed, and not by uncertain, conditional, hidden events, and which, if we be left to our own conjectures, may be alleged contrary ways: as for example, you say, that the doctrine of indulgences is dangerous, because it may take away the fear of Purgatory. And why may not I say, that the denying of Indulgences (besides the Heresy which is of itself damnable) is dangerous for the sequels; because the want of that devotion, and omission of very many works of many virtues, as repentance, penance, Charity &c: to which a desire, and endeavour to gain Indulgences, would move us, would very probably hinder the salvation of many, which otherwise might have been saved, as you say of hearing the public Offices, celebrated in a tongue not understood by all. Concerning which instances; I say, That if the doctrine of Protestants, in this matter be false, (as most certainly it is) than not very probably, (as you threaten us) but certainly they shall be damned, who in this particular oppose their judgement, and Practise, against the Belief, and Practise of the Catholic 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 err is this Point, yet godly Laymen, (as you speak) who in simplicity of hart, and out of Ignorance, obey the Church, by this their Obedience oblige, as I may say, Almighty God, never to permit, that their goodness and godliness, prove 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 virtues, which they exercise in hearing those Offices, would hinder the salvatien of many which otherwise might have been saved. Besides, if the want of devotion, which the frequent hearing the Offices underslood, might happily beget, may very probably hinder the salvation of many, which otherwise might have been saved, why shall not Protestants be obliged in all their Churches to more frequent Service, daily, and hourly, and be still receyving their Sacrament, lest for want of devotion, which that frequency might happily beget, the salvation of many be hindered, which otherwise would have been saved? In the universities, they have for most days in the week, their public Service in Latin, which divers Lay men, who may be present, cannot understand, and so be deprived of that devotion, the want whereof may hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might have been saved. But seeing many Catholic Writers, have handled this Point of public Prayers in Latin, both copiously and learnedly, it is enough for me to have answered, and retorted your Objections upon yourself and your Brethren: and it is a great foolery to deprive men, as you do, of their liberty, by imaginary, conditional 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 believe the Vicar of Christ to be infallible in his Definitions could be a congruous disposition to believe Antichrist, or that Antichrist could get into that See, as you impiously speak. There is no malice comparable to the malice and blindness of Heresy. But it is time for me to return from this necessary digression, and to go forward in confuting the doctrine of the sole-sufficiency of Scripture. And therefore 88 15. From Protestants themselves I argue in this manner. Most Protestant's hold, that we know Scripture to be the word of God, by the private spirit, or some quality inherent or internal to Scripture itself; and think it so evident, that, to ask how we can know Scripture to be the word of God, Calvin (Lib. 1. Inst. Cap. 7.) saith, is all one as to ask, whence we may learn how to discern light from darkness, white from black, sweet from sour. 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 own internal light, majesty and efficacy. Amesius (de Circulo Pontificio) saith; We believe that the Scriptures do shine by their own light. Whitaker (De Scriptura Q. 3. Cap: 3. ad 3.) They who have the Holy Ghost, can know God's voice even as a friend is wont to know, by the voice, his friend with whom he hath conversed most familiarly a long tyme. Potter saith (Pag: 141.) That, Scripture is of divine authority, the believer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture; and by many internal arguments found in the letter itself. Which words while Chill: interprets to signify only, that men are strengthened in their belief, by that beam of light which shines in Scripture, he leaves no means for his client Potter to believe with certainty the Scripture. For, he saith expressly in the same place, that the Church only presents, disposes, and prepares; which supposed, there is (sayeth he) in the Scripture itself light sufficient, which (though blind and sensual men see not, yet) the eye of reason cleared by grace, and assisted by the many motives which the church useth for enforcing of her instructions, one may discover to be divine, descended from the Father and fountain of light. But how come you M. Chilling worth to know, Scripture to be the word of God? We take it from your own words, [Pag: 69. N. 46.] where you say to your adversary; The conclusion of your tenth § is, that the divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself alone, but by some extrinsecall authority: which you need not prove, for no wise man denies it. But then, this authority is that of universal tradition, not of your church. Behold the agreement of protestant's in this main point, on which their whole religion depends. According to Potter, Chill: is a blind and sesuall man, who sees not that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture. And Potter, Calvin, Baron, and other Protestants deny that, which in Chilling worths judgement, no wise man denies. Out of which premises of protestants, it is easy to conclude, That, seeing so many of them imagine, a clear light to shine in Scripture, which, others affirm 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 have once been questioned, which now are receyved for canonical?) We must affirm, that much more a particular text, may to one seem evidently to signify that which to an other doth no way appear, but perhaps directly the contrary. And therefore although we have heard Calvin saying, that it is as easy to discern which be true scriptures, as to distinguish between white and black; yet it appears by what he writes (L 4 Inst. C. 9 N. 13.) that, for the interpreting of scripture, more labour, and industry is required; as is also clear by the many and hard rules which protestants require for interpretation thereof, as we have seen above: and therefore it is clear even from the doctrines of protestant's, that they have no certain means to judge when scripture is evident, and consequently it alone is not sufficient, to judge evidently of all points necessary to be believed. Nay, seeing they have no evident Ground to know that scripture is the word of God, they cannot be certain of any one text of scripture, though we did suppose that the sense thereof were very clear. 89. 16. It is a main ground with Heretics, that a living judge 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 believe nothing which cannot be proved out of scripture, they are obliged to prove out of scripture this very Ground, that the necessity of a living judge did expire, as soon as scripture was written. This is impossible for them to do; because no such text is to be found in the whole bible: Therefore they cannot hold it, even according to their own principles. See what I have said in my nynth reason, N. 59 to prove that according to their grounds, on text will serve their turn for our present purpose, unless 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 undertake that such a last book, or text hath evidently this Proposition; After the Canon of scripture was perfited, the necessity of a living judge did cease? To say nothing that it is not certain, 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 said above. 90. 17. I take an argument from the confession of Protestants themselves; that, the Ancient Fathers stand for us against them, and that therefore the Fathers erred. Which could never have happened to Persons so holy, wise, learned, sincere, laborious, dispassionate, and whom all Christians acknowledge to have wrought miracles on earth, and to be glorious Saints in heaven, if the scriptures were so express and evident, as our adversaries pretend. Or if they will needs have scripture to be so clear, every man of Conscience and discretion, will stand for the ancient Fathers, and us, who are acknowledged to agree with them. Now, that the Fathers are confessed by Protestants, to have taught the same doctrines which we at this day maintain, is diligently demonstrated by that judicious, exact, and Faithful Author of the Protestants Apology for the Roman Church, concerning divers points, (which the Reader, to be assured of the truth, and for the Eternal good of his soul, may find in the Alphabetical Table, Verb. Fathers, and then examine them unpartially) as, the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, Reservation of the Sacrament, Mass and Sacrifice, Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech, Propitiatory Sacrifice, even for the dead, Purgatory, , the possibility of keeping the commandments, justification and Merit of works, invocation of Saints, Translation of Saints Relics, and their worship, Pilgrimage to holy places, Grace conferred by Baptism, necessity of Baptism, Chrism and Confirmation, Confession of sins, enjoined penance, or satisfaction, Absolution, the Fast of Lent, other set Fasting daves, Fasting from certain meats, unwritten Traditions, Hallowing of Altars, Churches, Water, Oil, Bread, Candles &c: More Sacraments than two, that, Antichrist shallbe but one man, the great virtue of the sign of the Cross, the worshipping of it, Lights in the Church in the daytime, Images in the Church, their Worship, S. Peter's Primacy over the Apostles, the Pope's Primacy above 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 inferior orders of deacons', subdeacons', acolyts, exorcists &c: In so much as in regard of these (and many, more like) premises, many of the learned Protestants do deal plainly in making general disclaim in the Fathers, as may be seen in Brierley, tract: 1. Subdiv: 14. where, beside other Protestants, he names Whitaker, jacobus Acontius, Napper, Fulk, Downham, Melancthon, Peter Martyr, Beza, Caelius Secundus Curio, Sebastianus Francus &c: Besides, it cannot be denied, but that learned Protestants do tax the Fathers of divers errors (as is notorious, and may be particularly seen in Brierly ibid.) wherein although they manifestly wrong those Holy and Ancient Doctors, yet these their Accusers ought to gather from thence, that scripture is not evident, since men endued with all ornaments, and helps for attaining the true meaning thereof, were so much mistaken, as our sectaryes pretend. 91. The same is also clearly demonstrated, by reflecting, that very many of the most learned Protestants, agree with us in many points against their Protestant brethren, as Brierley Tract: 3. Sect: 7. lit. M. exactly demonstrates: For example, the Real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament; that, Sacraments do not only signify, but also confer grace; that, Christ after his corporal death did descend in soul into Hell; that, the Church must continue visible; concerning Evangelicall Counsels, Viz. that a man may do more than he is commanded, concerning the universality of Grace, and, that, Christ died for all; that men are not certain of their election, and that he who is in state of Grace, may finally fall; that, in case of divorce upon adultery, the innocent party may not marry again; that, to children of the Faithful dying vnbaptized salvation is not promised; Freewill: That in regard of Christ's Passion and promise, our good works proceeding from Faith, are meritorious; Temporal punishment reserved by God in justice for sin remitted; The impugning of the civil 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 give remission of sins; private confession of sins to a priest; distinction of mortal and venial sin in one and the same person; the indifferency of communion under one, or both kinds; sacrifice of the New Testament according to the order of Mechisadech: that first motions of our concupiscence, without our consent thereto, are not sins: that the commandments are not impossible, Transubstantiation: that the Sacraments of the old Testament were not in working, and effect equal with ours: The visible sign of imposition of hands in confirmation, with the grace thereby conferred: The like visible sign, and grace given in Orders; yea expressly counted a Sacrament: An indelible character imprinted by certain Sacraments; The baptism of women, and lay persons in case of necessity: The known intention of the church needful to the administration of Sacraments; Seven Sacraments; implicit Faith: that, Antichrist is yet to come: the patronage and protection of certain Angels over certain countries and Kingdoms: that the alteration of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, is not proved by scripture, but is acknowledged to be an apostolic Tradition to be perpetually observed: set times of Fasting, and from certain meats, appointed not only for politic order, but for spiritual considerations; the primacy of one, over the Church, in several Nations and Kingdoms; unwritten traditions, necessary to be observed; blessing of our meat and forehead with the sign of the cross, and further use thereof in the public 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 sign of the holy Cross if once or twice without superstition it be freely used in the Divine Service: yea if in private, our meat and drink be-signed therewith. For when we go to bed, or rise, we sign ourselves with the Cross according to the institution of Luther and other godly men. And, Joannes Manlius Luther's Scholar in loc: Commun: (Pag: 636.) saith, Luther said, Having made the sign of the Cross, God defend me, &c: As also the Communion-Booke in the time of King Edward the sixth (penned by advice and approbation of Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and other Protestant Divines of that time) printed Ann: 1549. Fol: 116. prescribeth the Priests signing of the Sacrament with the sign of the Cross. And Fol: 131. it prescribeth the Priests like consecrating the Font of Baptism with the sign of the Cross, 92. These Points, and more than these, which I omit, Brierley doth punctually demonstrate, divers Protestants to hold with us against their own Brethren: which I have more willingly set down, that Protestants may see, how little reason they have to esteem the very name of Papists, odious; since many of their greatest Divines are Papists, in so very many and chiefest Points, and (which ought not to pass without reflection) even in those particular Doctrines which to the vulgar sort seem most Superstitious, and for which they are brought up in contempt and hatred of our Religion, and us. If our Catholic Religion were as beggarly, as that of Protestants, which is content to call those Brethren who disagree from them in innumerable Points, we might easily increase our number, with addition of as many Protestants as we have rehearsed, and of many more than we can easily reckon. Certain it is, that, Protestants will scarcely be able to object any Points of moment against us, but that, jointly they must wound their own Brethren, if indeed they did understand what they say, and did not think the name of Papists, to be a sufficient cause of hatred, whatsoever that name doth signify, whereof many are very ignorant. But for my purpose; I conclude, that, Scripture alone cannot be clear, seeing Protestants, in so many, and so important matters (especially in those very particulars wherein they pretend to differ from us) are indeed so far divided among themselves, as that they fall to join with us, with whom nothing but mere necessity, and force of evident truth could move them to agree. And as the agreeing of so many Protestants with us, shows that the Scripture is not clear (at least in behalf of them who are forsaken by their own Brethren) some their disagreeing among themselves, doth convince the same. For how can men, if with sinceryty they seek the truth, be so divided, having before their eyes, one and the same clear and evident Rule, as they pretend scripture to be? 93. If any, for avoiding the premises, adventure to say, that, those learned protestants who affirm the Ancient Fathers to stand for us, do not understand the meaning of their words, and that for the same cause, perhaps protestants do not agree with us, nor differ among themselves, so much as their writings, not well understood, make show: To this answer, although I might reply with those words of Tertullian, (in Apologet:) Nemo ad suum dedecus mentitur &c: No man will lie to his own shame; but rather to his own credit: we sooner believe the confession of men against themselves, than their denial against themselves: as also I might say, that the testimonies of protestants for the said purposes, are so evident, so many, of so different persons, and delivered not incidently, or by some other occasion, but of set purpose, at large, and as I may say in cold blood, that they cannot with any modesty be avoided: yet I will only say (and the Objection deserves no other answer) that if the writings of men which are infinitely beneath the Majesty and sublimity of the Style and misteryes of holy scripture, and proportioned to the weakness of humane understanding, be so hard and obscure, we ought, even from this Objection, to conclude, that scripture alone cannot be evident. Thus the Lutherans do grievously complain against the Calvinists, (a) Gerardus Gieskenius a Lutheran, in his Book de veritate Corporis Christi in Coena contra Pezelium Pag: 93. so charges the Calvinists. because (say they) you allege Luther's words against his meaning. In like manner, the same Lutheran Charges them, for that they (b) Vbi supra. Pag: 77. endeavoured to make the Confession of Augusta (which teacheth the Real presence) to be Zuinglian, that is, against the real presence, exclaiming thereat; if this thing had been done in Arabia, America, Sardinta, or such like remote Countries, and of former times, this usurpation of fraud and historical falsehood were more tolerable. But seeing the question is of such things, as be done in our own times, and in the sight of all men, who with a quiet mind can endure such lies? In like manner Fulk, (in his Answer to a counterfeit Catholic, Artic: 17. Pag. 61.) is not ashamed to say, that the Lutherans and the Zwinglians do both consent in this, That the Body of Christ is received spiritually, not corporally, with the hart, not with mouth; which all the world knows to be manifestly untrue. Thus also Dr. Field (of the Church L. 3. C. 42. Pag: 170.) saith; I dare confidently pronounce, that after due and full examination of each others meaning, there shallbe no difference found touching the matter of the Sacrament, the Vbiquetary Presence, or the like, between the Churches reform by Luther's ministry in Germany, and other places, and those whom some men's malice call Sacramentaryes. And Dr. Potter [Pag: 90.] is not afraid to say, that the Lutherans and Calvinists differ rather in form and phrases of speech, then in substance of Doctrine, even in the main controversy between them about Consubstantiation, which after occasioned that of ubiquity. The main truth on both sides is out of Controversy; that Christ is really and truly exhibited to each faithful communicant, and that in his whole person he is every where. The doubt is only in the manner, how he is in the symbols, 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 received? was Christ as really exhibited to the Jews by their figures of him, as after his Incarnation, by his real existence? No doubt can be moved concerning the manner of his presence; unless 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 Christ's 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; seeing the question is not of his Divine Person, but concerning his sacred Humanity. Howsoever, if this Reason be good, it will serve for transubstantiation, at least as well as for Consubstantiation, or ubiquity, of which, the Protestant Hospinian (in Praefat. de Vbiquitate Lutheranorum Anno 1602.) saith Hoc portentum etc. 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 overthrows the whole Creed, it confounds the natures of Christ with Eutyches, it raises from out of Hell almost all the old heresies, and lastly, which is strange, it destroys the Sacrament for the maintaining whereof it was invented. And yet this point is to Potter only a curious nicety. Is it not intolerable partiality, to excuse ubiquity, or Consubstantiation, and yet condemn Transubstantiation? but by these examples we see, what command Passion hath over their understandings and will. And I must still conclude, that by these enormous differences amongst Protestants, it appears, that scripture in matters of great moment is not clear. 94. 18, You have least reason of all other, to defend the sufficiency of Scripture taken alone, who deliver such Doctrines, concerning the certainty and infallibility of Scripture itself, that it could not be any Rule at all, although it were snpposed to contain evidently all necessary points. Those Doctrines of yours I will only touch here, as much as belongs to my present purpose, intending to speak of them more at large in the next Chapter. First then; you teach (Pag. 62. N. 32.) that Scripture is none of the material objects of our Faith, or Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles, but only the means of conveying them unto us. 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 Books of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church, where they had been before receyved, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by those barbarous Nations, but still by the bare belief and practice of Christianity they might be saved, God requiring of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verityes therein contained, and not the divine authority of the Books wherin-they are contained. This Doctrine of yours being supposed, together with that other principle of Protestants, that, after the Canon of Scripture was perfited, the only means, which Christians have to know Divine Verityes revealed by Christ, is the Scripture, (which for that very cause they say must contain evidently all things necessary to salvation) it follows, that if Scripture be not a material Object of Faith (that is a thing revealed by God, and which men are obliged to receive and believe as such) men are not obliged to believe that means by which alone they can come to the knowledge of Divine revealed verityes: and then it clearly follows, that they cannot be obliged to that End which they only know by that means, to the knowledge of which means you say they are not bound. Neither can you say, that because we are obliged to know those revealed Truths which can be known only by Scripture, we are consequently obliged to know and believe the Scripture; because our supposition is, that we have no knowledge, suspicion, imagination, or inkling of revealed Truths, except by means of Scripture alone. (For if you grant any other means, you overthrew your main ground of relying upon scripture alone, and admit Tradition.) And therefore antecedently to any possible obligation to know immediately revealed Truths, we must know that means which alone proposes them to us, who cannot believe any necessity of knowing revealed truths, but by believing aforehand the scripture; which if we be not preobliged to believe we, cannot be obliged to believe the verityes themselves, which in respect of us shall remain as if they had never been revealed, like to infinite other truths in the abyss of God's wisdom, which shall never be notified to Men or Angels: This deduction of mine you cannot deny, since it is the same with one of your own, (Pag. 86. N. 93.) where you say; It was necessary that God by his Providence should preserve the Scripture from any indiscernible corruption, in those things which he would have known: otherwise it is apparent, it had not been his will that these things should be known: the only means of continuing the knowledge of them being perished. Now, is it not in effect all one to us, whether the scripture have perished in itself, or, as I may say, to us, while we are not obliged, to believe 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 believe, scripture to be a Rule of Faith. For since Protestants hold it to be the only Rule of Faith, if I be not obliged to believe that it is such a Rule, I cannot be obliged to any act of Faith: But you say we are not obliged to believe scripture antecedently or for itself; Therefore we are not bound to believe any revealed Truths; unless you grant some other means besides scripture for coming to the knowledge of them; and consequently although we should suppose, scripture to be evident in all points, 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 receive the contens thereof, as divine revealed truths. In a word. Either God hath revealed this truth (scripture is the word of God) or he hath not revealed it. If he have revealed it, than it is one of the things which we are to believe, and is a material Object of Faith, against your particular Tenet. If God hath not revealed it, than we have no obligation to believe 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 Protestants. And who can believe scripture to be a perfect Rule, if he do not believe it to be any Rule of Faith? Surely, if he believe it to be a perfect Rule he believes it to be a Rule. 95. Besides this, you deliver another doctrine, which overthrows the sufficiency of scripture taken alone. Thus you writ (p. 144. N. 31.) The Apostles doctrine was confirmed by Miracles, therefore it was entirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain: I say in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain divine truth, and which had the attestation of divine Miracles. The falsehood and danger of this doctrine, I will purposely confute hereafter. For the present, I say; that it makes Scripture wholly uncertain, and unfit to be a sufficient, yea or any Rule of Faith, although it were never so clear and evident in all necessary points. For if once we yield, that the Apostles could err in points belonging to Religion, we cannot believe them with certainty at any other time, or in any other article, as I demonstrate in the next Chapter: and the thing is manifest of itself. All Divines, and all men by the light of Reason, require an universal Infallibility in that Authority for which they must believe with divine Faith; and if it could err at one time, it might err at another, for aught we could know: or if it say one thing to day, and the contrary to morrow, what certainty can we have, to believe rather the one than the other? And indeed we can believe neither of them with certainty. Besides, you seem to require, that every part of Christian doctrine be confirmed by miracles, beforwe can be certain of the truth thereof; which blasts the credit of all scripture. For how do you know, that the Apostles wrought miracles to prove immediately and in particular, that, scripture is the word of God; Or how can you believe, that, miracles were wrought severally in confirmation of every rext of scripture? And yet we believe every such Text with an assent of divine Faith. Nay whereas protestants allege some texts to prove, that scripture contains evidently all necessary points, you must show, that those very texts were confirmed by miracles, if you will believe them with certainty as entirely true; which I suppose you will judge to be a chimerical endeavour: and therefore we must infer, that by no text of scripture, you can prove it to contain all necessary points of Faith. Divers other errors you maintain against holy scripture, which as in the next chapter I will demonstrate, make it uncapable of being any Rule at all for Christian Faith; and therefore you must either retract those errors, or renounce the common principle of protestants, that scripture alone contains evidently all points necessarily do to believed. 96. 19 And lastly. I overthrew theit sufficiency of scripture alone, by not only answering, but also confuting, the arguments, by which they endeavour to establish it. For, seeing it lie upon them positively to prove their Assertion; if it be demonstrated, that the arguments which they bring, are either impertinent, or insufficient, it will remain effectually proved, that they cannot avouch Scripture alone to contain all things necessary to salvation. I must therefore of necessity be large in answering their Objections; in performing whereof, I both Answer and Impugn; Defend the truth, and Confute my Adversary in one general point, which alone implies, or extends itself 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 allege him, speaks only of things necessary for all, that is, for every private person, not of things necessary for the whole Mystical 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 Prelates, Bishops and Priests, as of the manner of governing the Church, administering Sacraments, refuting Heretics &c: Secondly, he says not, that all things which are necessary for all, are writtrens evidently (which only could serve your turn) but only that they are written, which is true, though they were written, 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 help of tradition, (which only were for your purpose) yea that his words can have 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 immediately after the words by you cited. Thus he speaks § sed admissa: Dico eorum omnium dogmatum &c: I say, that there are found in scripture testimonies of all those Doctrines which belong to the nature of God, and that we may concerning such Doctrines be fully and plainly instructed out of the scriptures, if we understand them aright: but that sense of scripture depends on the unwritten Tradition of the Church. Wherefore Theodoret (L. 1. C. 8.) relates, that scriptures were alleged on both sides (both by Catholics and Arians) and when the Arians could not be convinced by them, (scriptures) because they did expound those selfsame scriptures otherwise than Catholics did, they were condemned by words not written, but understood according to piety, and no man ever doubted but that Constantine consented to that condemnation. Can any thing have been spoken more clearly, solidly, and truly, to show in what sense, things of greatest moment (as was that article of the Divinity of Christ our Lord against the wicked Arians, for defence whereof the church suffered so much, and so many Martyrs shed their blood) are contained fully and plainly in scripture, that is in those texts which fully and plainly recommend the church and unwritten tradition, as I noted in the beginning. And yet further in the same (Lib. 4. Cap. 4. § 7.) Necesse est etc. he saith, that oftentimes the scripture is doubtful and intricate, so that it cannot be understood unless it be interpreted by some who cannot err: therefore 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 believe as matters of Faith, and yet cannot be proved by scripture alone. And (Cap. 7.) he saith, S. Austin said, that, that Question (whether they who were baptised by Heretics, were to be rebaptised) could not be decided by scripture before a full Council of the Church, but that after the Council had declared the doubt and the whole Question, there may be taken assured documents from the scripture. For, scriptures being explicated by the Council, do firmly and certainly prove that which they did not firmly prove before. But why do I stand upon particular passages, since in the same (Lib. 4. Cap. 3.) he speaks universally, and says, that we Catholics disagree from Heretics, because we affirm that all necessary doctrine concerning either Faith or Manners, is not contained expressly in scripture: and, that beside the written word of God, there is required the unwritten word, that is, Divine and Apostolical Traditions &c: and (C. 4.) the very title whereof is this; The necessity of Traditions is proved; in the beginning he saith: First we will endeavour to show, that scripture without Traditions was neither simply necessary, nor sufficient. Secondly: that there are extant Apostolical Traditions not only concerning manners, but also Faith. Is it not very strange you should allege Bellarmine for the sufficiency of scripture alone, who in a whole book, containing twelve Chapters, professes to teach, and prove the necessity of Tradition, or Gods unwritten word; and in most clear words (which even now we alleged) declares how scripture is clear and sufficient, namely together with Tradition and Interpretation of God's church? But by this is confirmed what I said above, how hard it is to find evidence in holy Scripture, the matter and manner whereof surpasses all natural wit, seeing the words of men are so confidently alleged, out of those places, wherein they purposely teach, profess, and prove 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 conceive, 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 Gospel (that is, as you speak, the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ) in my judgement it ought to be with them that believe him, no manner of question. And this you endeavour to prove out of these words of S. Luke in the Introduction to his Gospel. For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things, which are most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the first, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty, of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. To this place you add, the entrance to his history of the Acts of the Apostles: the former treatise have I made, o Theophilus, of all that jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up. Therefore, say you, all things necessary to salvation, are certainly contained in S. Luke's 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 us, whether all necessary things be contained in scripture obscurely, or implicitly, or in a general way of referring us to God's Church, for divers particulars; but whether all necessary Points be contained 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 prove all that I have said you must prove, if you speak to the matter. Which also appears by considering that not only Catholics, amongst whom you will not deny but there are many learned, pious, and desirous to save their souls, but Protestants also see no such evidence, for proving the sufficiency of S. Luke's Gospel, or any other Gospel, or particular Book of Scripture, taken alone; seeing their doctrine is, that, scripture contains all things necessary, only after the Canon was finished; and yet S. Luke's Gospel was written forty years before the whole scripture was written. For this cause, Protestants interpret Omnis scriptura utilis est (2. Tim. 3.16. All scripture is profitable, not distributiuè, for every particular part or Book 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 help their errors, by their different Translations, and how little credit is to be given to their Bibles.) Neither do Protestants commonly allege these Texts of S. Luke, for the sufficiency of scripture, but other places, as we have seen above: and who can imagine that they would have omitted so pregnant a proof; if they were of your mind concerning the evidence thereof? Remember here, what you say [Pag. 61. N. 24.] The thing is not evident of itself; which is evident, because many do not believe it. How then can the words, and meaning of S. Luke be evident of themselves, seeing so many, both your Brethren, and Adversaries, neither see, nor believe any such meaning? Call also to mind, what you write [Pag: 99 N. 119.] How shall I be assured, that the places have indeed this sense in them? Seeing there is not one Father for 500 years after Christ, that does say in plain terms, the Church of Rome is infallible. This I retort, and faith; seeing there is not (I say not one Father for 500 years after Christ, but not) one learned writer for 1500. years after Christ that interprets this Text as you do, How shall I be assured, that this place hath indeed this sense in it? Yea even by this appears the necessity of a living judge 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 understanding of All: And; the former Treatise have I made of all that Jesus began both to do and teach. Of All; All, is a sign of Universality: he that says all, excepts nothing. If therefore we follow the plain, obvious, usual, Grammatical, and Logical sense, it must signify, that S. Luke delivered in writing, absolutely all that our Saviour wrought and taught. But this large notion you cannot admit without contradicting S. John, (Cap: 21.25.) But there are many other things which Jesus did: which if they were written in particular, neither the world it-self I think were able to contain those books that should be written. Well then, being driven from the Logical and seeming evident notion of (All,) you must understand All not in the whole latitude of the word, but with some restriction. I pray you, show us this particular restriction, not from any probable, uncertain, topical discourse of your own, but from some certain, express, evident Text of Scripture declaring this restriction. But this is impossible for you to do, as every child will see. Therefore 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 understand All, to signify all things profitable. But this sense cannot be admitted, since no man can deny, but that the knowledge of those things which S. John witnesseth not to have been written, had been profitable to us 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 unprofitable words, when (Act. 20.35.) he said; you must remember the word of our Lord Jesus, because he said: it is more a blessed thing to give rather than to take: which words of our blessed Saviour are not to be found in S. Luke, or the whole bible; but S. Paul receyved them only by tradition. Those things also which are omitted by S. Luke, but recorded in the other Gospels, no Christian will deny to be profitable. Therefore by All, we must not understand All things profitable. 103. Will you understand by All, all things necessary to be written by any? First, in this sense, this text makes nothing for your purpose, unless first you beg the Question, and suppose that all things necessary to be believed, must also necessarily be written; which is the very point in Question between us. 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 down all that is necessary to be written, yet this would not prove that his Gospel contains all things necessary to be believed. Secondly, yourself cannot allow of this sense without contradicting yourself, who hold, that every Gospel contains all things necessary to be believed, and therefore S. Luke could not judge it necessary that he should write all such things, which had been but to repair, 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 therefore S. Luke (according to this supposition) could not think himself obliged to write every point necessary to be believed, since he was not ignorant, that before he wrote his Gospel, the Gospels of S. Matthew, and S. Mark, and some Apostolical Epistles were written, and in them some points necessaty to be believed, which therefore were not necessary to be written by him. Wherefore you cannot maintain this sense, as being contradictory both to yourself, and the common doctrine of Protestants. 104. What then remains, but that S. Luke understood 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 Gospel, by the particular motion, assistance, and direction of the holy Ghost, as we see every one of the four Evangelists, and other Canonical writers do not deliver all, the same things, for matter, or manner, as the holy Ghost, for ends known to his Infinite Wisdom, did move and direct them. This sense is true, and contains both a full Answer, and a clear Confutation, and, as I may say, a total Destruction of your Objection, for any force it can have against us. For, now you are obliged to prove, out of some other evident text of scripture, that the Holy Ghost intended that S. Luke should write in his Gospel, all things necessary to be believed, before you can assure us, that he, by the word All, understood all such necessary points: but than you change your Medium, or Argument, and pass to a new, distinct proof; and clearly confess that the Objection which you have brought, is of no force, unless antecedently to this word All, you prove that S. Luke intended to set down in particular all necessary Points. Yea, though you could prove by some other Argument independently of the word All, that S. Luke's 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 contain 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 contain all truth, though we are infallibly sure, that it contains nothing but truth. How vain then is your brag of the evidence of this Text of S. Luke for your purpose? Even yourself show how little you can gather from the word (All) when [Pag: 210. N. 40.] you say, that every one of the Evangelists, must be believed to have expressed all necessary Points, because otherwise how have they complied with their own design, which was, as the Titles of their Books show, to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it? Thus you say; and then add these words: By the whole Gospel of Christ, I understand not the whole History of Christ, but All that makes up the covenant between God and man. But by what, or whose Commission, do you understand the whole Gospel with that limitation and declaration? is not all that is contained in the Gospel of S. Luke, or of the other Evangelists, part of their Gospels, respectively? And is not this still to beg the Question, and suppose, or take as granted, that the design of the Evangelists, was to set down all things necessary to salvation, or, all that makes up the covenant between God and man? Or do you not by this your voluntary restriction of (All) bear witness, that you have no other ground for understanding All points, or the whole Gospel to be understood of all necessary points, except your own voluntary affirmation, and preconceyved opinion. 105. Thirdly. Of all men in the world, you have least reason to urge this Text of S. Luke, though it were granted the meaning thereof to be that which you pretend. 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 itself very untrue, yet being by you believed to be true, engages you in a very hard task, 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 own. 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, wherein the writer may seem to declare his own intention, endeavour, and proceeding, rather than matter of doctrine, Manners, or revelations from God; as we see, S. Luke in the preface to his Gospel, saith; Visum est mihi assecuto omnia; It seemed good to me; not, Visum est Deo & mihi, It hath seemed 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 Council said; Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis: It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and us. Beside, this manner of expression; It seemed to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the first, (or as the Rheims testament hath out of the vulgat, and Greek, 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 than divine inspiration, Revelation, or infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost. And this argument may be strongly urged, by calling to mind, that Calvin (in Antid. Cocil:) seeks to prove, that the writer of the book of the Maccabees cannot be esteemed Canonical, because in his second book, second Chapter, he saith; And to our own selves indeed, which have taken upon us this work to make an abridgement, we have taken in hand no easy labour, yea rather a business full of watching and sweat. For, Canonical writters did write not out of their own wit 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) prove also against S. Luke's both Preface and Gospel, because he affirms that he hath diligently attained to all things, and that he wrote in order taking them from those who had heard and seen them. Which words according to calvin's discourse, signify that S. Luke composed the Gospel after a humane manner, by inquiry, by diligence, by labour, by following a method, and order, etc. Whereas Sacred authors wrote not by their own wit and labour, but by revelation of the holy Ghost. Therefore if once it be granted, as you both grant, and seek to prove, that the Apostles did sometime 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 proving out of S. Luke's Preface to his Gospel, that his Gospel contains all Points necessary to salvation, you plainly deprive both Preface and Gospel, of all credit due to them as to the word of God; And therefore you cannot draw Arguments from them for yourself against us. 106. 4. Since it cannot be denied, but that the Holy Ghost might have used the pen of S. Luke, to deliver what best pleased his Divine wisdom, and Goodness; neither can we by humane reason, or topical and seeming probable discourses, gather with certainty how far he decreed from Eternity to use the writing of that holy Evangelist, dare any man presume by the strenthg of wit, or arguments, to force God himself to decree and perform, what he imagines should have been done? yourself (Pag. 102. N. 128.) affirm this ground to be false, that, That course of dealing with men seems 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 thankful for those sufficient, nay abundant means of salvation which God hath of his own Goodness granted us: and not conclude, he hath done that which he hath not done, because forsooth in our vain judgements it seems convenient he should have done so. And (Pag. 84. N. 85.) Though i● were convenient for us to have one, (Judge of controversyes) yet it hath pleased God (for reasons best known to himself) not to allow us this convenience. These passages of yours I relate in this place, as very considerable, not only for this present occasion, but as a general antidote against your poisonous manner of proving your opinions, not by authority, or evident texts of scripture, but with some conceypts, or reasons of your own, which you apprehend as probable. But this humane prudence is but foolishness, when it is applied to determine, what were the Free Eternal decrees of God, whose thoughts are raised above our imaginations, more than Heaven above earth. And to come to our purpose; the Holy Ghost might have 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 mystical 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 Canonical writers, or from the Church, and Tradition. In all which cases, the word, All, had been truly verified, because S. Luke had perfectly written All that the Holy Ghost intended to be written by his means, concerning the words, and works of our Blessed Saviour. For, seeing, as I said above, All cannot be taken in the most universal sense, which of itself it might bear, the particular limitation, or restriction thereof must wholly 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 certain limitation or explication of the universal particle All can be given, except that which I have declared, that S. Luke hath delivered All according to the End, prescribed by the Motion and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise what certain reason can be given, why all the Evangelists do sometime deliver the self same Points, and sometime not; yea some one expresses some particular, which all the rest have omitted? Or why of these millions of words, or deèds, which all of them have omitted, some were not set down as well as those which now we read in them? And so upon due consideration, the expressing the word All, cannot he of any advantage to you, because it must have been understood though it had not been expessed, and being expressed signify no more than if it had been only understood, and collected from the nature of Holy Scripture, and Privilege of Canonical Writers, for whom we may and must most certainly avouch, that they perfectly set down All things, according to the direction which they receyved from the Holy Ghost. Yourself teach, (Pag. 35. N. 7.) that, Christians have mea●es sufficient to determine, not all controversyes, but all necessary to be determined; and why should you judge it an incongruity in us to say, that S. Luke wrote not all the words and works of our Saviour, but all necessary to be written by him; whose purpose, if it had been to make a Catechism, or Creed, or a Sum of Christian Doctrine, would have required an other form and method, different from the Historical way which he and other Evangelists hold. And that S. Luke proposed to himself a far different End, appears 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 whereof they had not full knowledge, he intending hereby to withdraw us from others uncertain narrations. And Cornel. a Lapide upon S. Luke, observes that S. Luke wrote the Gospel against some idle, ignorant, and perhaps false Evangelists, who in Syria or Greece, had written the Gospel imperfectly, yea perhaps lyingly, as S. Luke himself insinuates in the beginning of his Preface, in saying, that for as much as many had taken in hand to set forth a declaration etc. it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the first, to write to thee in order &c: So Origen, S. Ambrose, Theophylact here etc. S. Luke therefore taxeth Apocryphal Gospels which went about under the name of Mathias, Thomas, and other Apostles. Whereby it appears, that S. Luke never thought of making a Catechism, or giving a Catalogue of all points necessary to be believed, but to secure us from falsehood, errors, uncertainty, or fables, which indeed might have made the whole Gospel of Christ suspected, whether the points contained in such apocryphal Writers, be supposed to have been many or few, necessary, or only profitable etc. And therefore 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 have complied, by that care and diligence, which he mentions in the Preface to his Gospel. For, by this necessary industry concerning All things, he was enabled and secured not to deliver uncertayntyes, or falsehoods, or fictions in those particular points which afterward he thought fit 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 appear in my next Consideration. Now what a consequence in this? S. Luke's Intention was, not to deliver any false or uncertain Narration: Therefore it was necessary he should expressly set down all things necessary to salvation. The true consequence should be this, and no more; Therefore to comply with the said intention, it was necessary he should not set down any thing uncertain, false, or fabulous. And then, I hope, yourself will not allow this Consequence: It was necessary he should not set down any thing false or fabulous; therefore it was necessary he should set down all things necessary to be believed. 107. 5. Considering with attention this place of S. Luke, I observed him to affirm indeed, that he had (assecutus omnia) attained to the knowledge of all things, but saith not universally, that he had written all things, but only indefinitely it seemed good unto me to write to thee, Good Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. And who can doubt but that S. Luke attained the knowledge of many particulars, which he written not in his Gospel? Even in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles he sets down some particulars, which happened before our Saviour's Ascension, and are omitted in his Gospel: or who dare say, that he knew not one of all those innumerable things, which S. John affirms not to be witten by any? As also when it is said, that S. Luke written, that Theophilus might know the truth of those words whereof he had been instructed, it cannot be doubted, but that Theophilus was instructed in more Points than he could read in S. Luke's Gospel aone; since, as I said, S. Luke in the Acts expresses something concerning Christ, which he hath not written in his Gospel, and Theophilus might have red the Gospels of S. Matth. and S. Mark, and some other Canonical scripture, written before the Gospel of S. Luke; and therefore the knowledge or Faith of S. Luke, and Theophilus extended itself to more Objects, or Truths, than are written in his Gospel; so that still we see, that, All cannot be understood of all simply, but with 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 wherein Theophilus was instructed: Another, all that S. Luke intended to write: and amongst all these and other limitations, you will never be able to prove, that your All, that is, all things necessary to be believed, is the meaning of S. Luke. 108. In this Reflection, that S. Luke saith he had understood all, but saith not that he wrote all, I was not only confirmed, but settled, when I found it to have been delivered, above twelve hundred years ago, by S. Ambrose in his explanation of this preface of S. Luke, in these words: visum est mihi assecuto omnia a principio etc. It seemed good to me having attained to all things from the beginning to write to thee in order. He says that he hath attained 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 attained to all: for, if all those things which (saith S. John) Jesus did, were written, I think the world itself could not contain them. For, you may perceive, that he purposely omitted those things also, which had been written by others, to the end that a different grace might shine in the Gospel, and every book might excel as it were with certain particular miracles of mysteries 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 Gospel he had written of all that Jesus began both to do and teach: But it is certain, that he wrote not all that our Saviour Jesus did: Therefore it is not certain, that he set down all that he taught. 109. 6. Let us suppose, (not grant) that by All, S. Luke understands, all necessary points and then I pray you mark how you make him speak; Because may have gone about to compile a Narration of the things (will you have us add here necessary, that have been accomplished among us; it seemed good also to me, having diligently attained to all things necessary from the beginning, to write to the in order, that thou mayst know the verity of those necessary words whereof thou hast been instructed. And in like manner, his Preface to the acts, must go thus; the first speech I made of all things nacessary o Theophilus, which Jesus began to do and to teach. &c: Let, I say, S. Luke be falsely supposed to speak thus; and then tell me what good sense will you find in those words, of all things necessary, which Jesus began to do? And how dare you limit the contents of S. Luke's Gospel to things necessary, seeing it contains many things not necessary? Perhaps you think I do you wrong, in saying you limit 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 jesus began to do and teach, must not at least imply all the principal and necessary things? be it so; will you then have the Text of S. Luke bear this sense? It seemed good unto me, having attained at least to all things necessary, etc. as if the Evangelist himself were doubtful of what kind of truths he had been informed, or had set down in his Gospel; whether necessary points only, or both necessary and profitable. Do you not see, into what labyrinths, you cast yourself, by your voluntary ungrounded limitations, or interpretations of S. Luke? And how many ways your Objection is evidently both answered and confuted? and further, how easily the twelve demands which you make, to prove that S. Luke's Gospel must contain all necessary Points, are answered? Which I will now do, having first told the Reader, that every one of your Demands or Proofs, is but a begging of the question, and a supposal of that which is in Controversy, as will appear in every particular Point. 110. Your Demands (Pag. 212. N. 43.) are these: 1. Whether S. Luke did not undertake the very same thing which he says many had taken in hand. ● 111. Answer may be given to this Demand, either as the thing is in itself; or as it relates merely to our present Controversy, to wit, whether S. Luke undertook, to set down all things necessary to salvation. For which last consideration or respect, it imports nothing for you, or against us, though it were granted, that S. Luke did undertake the very same thing, which he says, many had taken in hand; unless you could prove, that those many did take in hand, to write a Gospel, containing all things necessary to salvation, which you will never be able to do, otherwise then by way of imagination, or as in a dream: especially if we add, that you must do it out of some evident Text of Scripture, telling us, that those Persons (wholly unknowen to us) had such a particular design: which till you can perform, give me leave, to retort against you, this Argument. S. Luke (in your supposition, or imagination undertaken the very same thing which he says many had taken in hand▪ but there is no imaginable ground to affirm, that those many had taken in hand, to deliver evidently all particular points necessary to salvation: Therefore there is no ground to affirm, that S. Luke had any such design. 112. But if we answer your Demand, according as the thing is in itself; I say, that we must in no case grant that S. Luke undertook the very same thing, which he says many had taken in hand, but rather the direct contrary; his purpose having been, after a diligent and faithful search, (wherein those others failed) to oppose their proceeding, by providing an antidote against their careless, or false, or uncertain, and apocryphal Narrations. Yet if your meaning be only in a general way, that as those men purposed, or pretended, to write the History of our Saviour Christ, so S. Luke also had the same general aim: (although one might deny, or Question this very thing, and without any great rashness of judgement conceive, that they had some other sinister End agreeable to the Means they used, of false, or fabulous stories, yet) I will not stand with you in the denial of this, as being a thing, which can neither hurt us, nor help you, but is wholly impertinent, till first it be proved, that those men intended, to set down all necessary Points of Faith; and then further, that S. Luke agreed with them, in that particular design of writing all such Points; yea and until you can prove both these things, out of some evident Text of scripture. Besides, although you could perform an impossible task, and prove that some of those many, had that design of specifying all necessary Points: by what dream can any man assure himself, that we must say the same of all? Rather (if we will discourse according to mere humane reason or conjectures, without certain authority) they being many, as S. Luke affirms, it was less needful, that every one should set down all necessary Points, it being abundantly sufficient, that some, or divers, or many of those many, should do 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 certain, but only probably persuaded, that every one of the Evangelists, who yet were but four, should write all things necessary; (and I hope, you will not pretend to be sure, that all those many intended to do more than 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 S. Luke undertake the very same thing, which he says many had taken in hand? Can he undertake contradictoryes, to deliver, and not deliver all necessary Points? But, as I said, whatsoever you will imagine those men to have intended in particular, there is no necessity, that S. Luke should be obliged to do, whatsoever they proposed to perform; as we see, he hath not set down all the particulars, which are recorded by the other three Evangelists. We have 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 general, that all the four Evangelists undertaken the same thing, that is, to write the History or Gospel of our Blessed Saviour: and therefore we might say (if there were any need to say so) that S. Luke may be said, to undertake the very same thing, which he says, many had taken in hand, though he did not set down all the particulars, which you may fancy they intended to write. If S. Ambrose could say (and the thing of itself is clear) that S. Luke, did not write all that himself with diligence had learned, and believed; why will you oblige him, to write all that those unknown 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 been showed above out of good Authors. In which respect, I had reason to say, that we might well deny, that S. Luke agreed, even in the general design, with those many whom he affirms to have gone about to compile a Narration of those things which have been accomplished among us. I will therefore conclude, with putting you in mind, that you beg the Question, in regard your Demand must go upon a supposition, that all necessary Points are to be contained in scripture. Otherwise upon what ground can you affirm, that all they who intended to write the Gospel of Christ, were to set down all particular Points necessary to be believed? For, if you would be pleased to believe (or at least for the present to abstract from both parts, and not suppose the contrary) that beside scripture, there are other Means to propose Divine Verityes, your Demand loses all force; it being no consequence, that when there are divers Means to attain one End, we must either make use determinately of one means alone, or else not arrive to that End: and therefore you must first suppose, that there is no means but scripture, to believe Divine Revelations, before you can make good this consequence; Those many of whom S. Luke speaks, and S. Luke himself, intended to write the Gospel of Christ; Therefore they were obliged to write all Points necessary to salvation. For, you will be instantly, and easily, taken of, and answered; that beside scripture, there are other means for the said 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 have said already, that it is a Chimaera, for you to feign what in particular those many purposed to set down: as also, why S. Luke should be obliged, to write the same particulars, which you may dream, those men should have set down. And your Demand must be answered 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. Luke's Gospel: for example; those particulars concerning our B. Saviour, which S. Luke sets down, only in the Acts of the Apostles, about his Ascension, Apparition to S. Stephen, to S. Paul &c: as also those mysteries, which are omitted by S. Luke, and written by the other Evangelists; and other points, once believed by Christians, and written by none of the Evangelists, nor any other Canonical Writer, as S. john (Cap. 21.) witnesseth. You do therefore both beg the question, in supposing, that those many, of whom S. Luke speaks, must of necessity, have set down all necessary points; as if all such points must be written by every one who undertakes to write the Gospel of Christ; and also deliver a manifest untruth, as if Christians did not most surely believe, many more Articles, than are set down in S. Luke's Gospel, 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 Gospel 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 Christians, is written in S. Luke's Gospel, or in the whole Bible, is to beg the question. For you know it is the thing which we deny. As also it is certain, that many things surely believed▪ by Christians, are not written in S. Luke's Gospel, nor in any of the Gospels, as I shown in answer to your second Demand. You demand 117. 4. Whether they which were eye-witnesses, and Ministers of ●he word from the beginning, delivered not the whole Gospel of Christ? 118. Answer: you either beg the Question, if you will still suppose, that they delivered in writing the whole Gospel, that is, all the Doctrine of Christ; and also utter a falsehood, it being most certain, that they delivered, and others believed, more than is written, as S. John witnesseth: Or else you speak nothing to the purpose; if you mean only, that they delivered in writing, some things of the whole Gospel, which no man denies, but you should prove, that they delivered all necessary Points. 119. 5. You demand, Whether he does not undertake to write in order these things whereof he had perfect understanding from the first? 120. I answer this, as I did the last: If you mean, that he undertakes to write in order All things necessary whereof he had perfect unstanding, you both beg the question, and say more than is true. If you mean, that he undertaks to write only some of these things, whereof he had perfect understanding from the first, you speak not to the purpose of proving, that he writes all necessary Points of Faith. You demand 121. 6. Whether he had not perfect understanding of the whole Gospel of Christ? 122. Answer: Who can assure you that he had perfect understanding of every Miracle which our Saviour wrought? But suppose he had perfect understanding of the whole Gospel in the largest sense, that you can imagine; upon this if you will say, that he written all Points of which he had perfect understanding, you both beg the question, and deliver a manifest untruth, as I have proved. 123. 7. You demand, Whether he does not undertake to write to Theothilus of all things wherein he had been instructed? 124. Answer: undoubtedly no; and I must still repeat that you beg the Question by supposing it, and utter an untruth by affirming it. For, to omit other points, S. Luke himself in the very first Chapter of the Acts, instructed Theophilus in several things not expressed in his Gospel, for example, of some circumstances of our B Saviour's Ascension: his giving the Faithful at that time most holy documents; an Angel declaring to them that he was to come in judgement; a punishment of Judas the Traitor, not expressed in the Gospel; He burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; (Act. 1.18.) his sending the Holy Ghost; to say nothing of other Points contained in the Acts; in the Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. John, and in other Canonical writings, not expressed by S. Luke in his Gospel; of all which, we cannot imagine Theophilus, so famous and principal a Christian, to have been ignorant. 125. 8. You demand: Whether he had not been instructed in all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ? 126. Answer: Certainly he was, and in many more Points, than were necessary. But you beg the Question, if you suppose that S. Luke wrote all things wherein Theophilus had been instructed, as also utter an untruth, as I have proved, or speak not to the purpose, if you mean only that he wrote some of those Points. 127. 9 You demand: Whether in the other Text, All things which jesus began to do and teach, must not at least imply all the principal and necessary things? 128. Answer: This were an excellent way of proving, if it were as good, as it is easy, To prove what you would have, by the only ask whether it be so, which is indeed nothing but to beg the Question. Our Question is, whether S. Luke have set down all necessary Points; and you prove it, by only ask whether it be not so; You know, we say, that neither the Gospel of S. Luke, nor the whole scripture alone, contains in particular, all Points necessary to salvation: and as for the word All in S. Luke, it cannot signify universally and absolutely all things; neither ought you to determine the restriction without evident scripture, which if you leave, you can bring us no certainty. For if you fly to reason alone your Faith must float in uncertaintyes for things above reason; and what certain reason can you give, that S. Luke should necessarily set down all necessary points, rather than S. Matthew, and S. Mark, whom you only probably affirm to have written all things necessary? Yea seeing those two Evangelists, wrote before S. Luke, they should rather have done it; especially S. Matthew, who wrote the Gospel before the rest; and so, in reason it might seem more needful, that he should have written all necessary points, if indeed your false doctrine were true, that all necessary things must be written. In the mean time, you must not confound Principal and Necessary things, as if universally they were all one. Some points may be in themselves Principal, and not necessary; Others Necessary, and yet in themselves not principal: Others, both Principal, and Necessary. The manner of the existence of God; Identity with his attributes; Free Decrees; Infallible Prenotion of all things; the proceeding of one Divine Person from another, and the like, are in themselves, and as they appear to Angels and Saints in the Beatifical vision, most Principal Objects; but for the manner (which is also a most principal Object) are not universally necessary for all, nor possible to be known in this mortal life. Contrarily, the Matter and Form of Baptism, and other Sacraments, and the like, are not principal Points in themselves, or in their natural perfection and entity; yet they are Necessary to be known. The Conception of the Son of God in the womb 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 Principal, and necessary, and yet S. Mark (who alone begins his Gospel with these words, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as part of scripture) doth not mention them: and if one should demand concerning S. Mark (as you do of the Text of S. Luke) whether his words, (The Gospel of Jesus Christ) must not at least imply all the principal and necessary things, which Jesus began to do and teach, what would you answer? Whatsoever can be answered for S. Mark, will serve for answer concerning that Text of S. Luke. Yea, what will you answer even for S. Luke's Gospel, wherein is omitted the sending of the Holy Ghost, which is a very Principal and Necessary Article of Christian Religion? Can he say, All, assecuto omnia, that he had attained the knowledge of all, and yet omit a Point so principal and necessary? If so, than you cannot by the particle All in the Acts, understand all things principal and necessary. Neither will it serve your turn, to say, that S. Luke makes profession, to deliver all things which Jesus began to do and teach, which the other Evangelists do not profess. For the sign All in S. Luke, being not to be understood universally, as I have often said, and is clear out of S. John, (Cap. 21.) it must admit some limitation, and can signify no more, than what all the Evangelists did purpose and perform, that is, to deliver all things which Jesus began to do 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 receive our Saviour Christ as the true Messiah; or else for confutation of some particular heresy; or for prevention of false and sictious narrations: in which respect, every one of the Evangelists, might have used the same word all as in deeds, they did fully comply with the same duty which S. Luke performed. Which I confirm by the Protestant Translation Anno 1622. saying in the Preface to S. Luke's Gospel; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the very first. etc. Where there is not the word All, and yet you will not deny but that it is to be understood, as if it were expressed; and accordingly the Protestant Translations, or Editions of the Years 1593. 1596. 1602. express that word; It seemed good also to me, as soon as I had searched out perfectly all things from the beginning. And therefore all the Evangelists, as I said, might have expressed All, and must be understood in reality to write all, no less then S. Luke who expresses so much. 129. But here occurrs a difficulty, which moves me also, to make this demand: whether All in the preface to S. Luke's Gospel (as soon 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 have I made of all that jesus began to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up?) You cannot say, that they signify the same thing: because it is certain, that S. Luke had searched out divers things concerning our B. Saviour, which he did not commit 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. Therefore, the word all in S. Luke must have a different signification, when he saith, that he had searched or had notice of all, and when he says, that he wrote all: and so, by all which even in these two texts, hath a different signification, you cannot possibly learn, that S. Luke wrote in his Gospel, all things necessary to salvation of those things, which Jesus began to do and teach, but you must do it out of some other texts of scripture, declaring that he in the texts of the Acts, by All, understands all things necessary to salvation, though he understand much more by All in his Preface before his Gospel, assecuto omnia, having understood all, but no man in his wits will undertake any such task. You demand 130. 10 Whether this be not the very interpretat ●ō o your Remish Doctors in their Annotation upon this place? 131. Answer: why make you not a conscience, to deceive, the Reader, by alleging Authors against their known meaning? But this shows, as I observed above, how hard it is to find any Writing so clear, that either by malice or mistake, is not obnoxious to be misunderstood. And Cha: Ma: (whom you egregiously wrong in this kind and particularly in fathering on him, that which through his whole Book he disproves and detests, that a formal Heretic 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:) said: what wonder is it if they have endeavoured to falsify the words of holy scripture, who have corrupted those mean things which we have written? you know, that, those most pious, zealous, and learned men, who wrote the Annotations upon the New Testament, firmly believe, and upon all occasions teach, proclaim, and prove, the necessity of Tradition, and that scripture alone is not evident, or sufficient without a living judge, and the Gift of interpretation bequeathed by God to his Church. Do they not, even in their Annotations upon this very first Chap: of the Acts, 14. and 15. verse, purposely avouch, and prove the same? When therefore, they say in their short marginal Note upon these words, all things, (Act: 1.) not all particularly, but all the principal and most necessary things, it is clear, their meaning is not, that S. Luke had written all particular points, necessary to be believed in God's Church, but only, that he had set down, what was principal and most necessary for the End at which he aimed; that is, to prove our Saviour to be the messias, and to oblige men to believe so much; as also, to preserve us from false or feigned Narrations. And it is certain, S. Luke omitted nothing that was most necessary for these ends. I might add, that if we examine exactly those words, All the, principal 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 Canonical Writers, or to Tradition, and the Declaration of God's Church: and so the words of those Doctors, do not make good your demand, which concerned absolutely all principal and necessary things. 132 Neither doth this any way hinder, but that S. Luke and the Evangelists may be most truly and properly said to write the Gospel and life of Christ while he lived on earth, in order to the ends which I have declared; as also because though they wrote not all, but something of all, as S. Ambrose speaks; and we may say, not singula generum but genera singulorum; yet every one of them wrote, of our B. Saviour's miracles, of his Doctrine, of his Parables, of his promises, of his sufferings, of his Death &c: but not every particular, that might have been recorded under these kinds, or general heads. And this is a proper and literal explication, both for the words of S. Luke which you object, and for what you allege concerning the other three Evangelists, to prove that every one of them must express every necessary point of faith. For if the Evangelists may be truly said to have written, for example, the Miracles of our Saviour though neither any one, nor all of them together, have written the twenty thousandth part of them, as we gather out of S. John, much more may every one of them be truly said, to write the Gospel, or History of Christ, though they express not every particular point or object of Christian Faith, taken in the whole latitude thereof. I hope you will not be objecting against the Evangelists, how can they be said to write the Miracles of Christ, of they writ not the half, nor fourth, nor tenth, no nor the thousandth part thereof; as you are pleased to object against us, and say, (Pag: 210. N. 40.) If every one of them (Evangelists) have not in them all necessary Doctrines, how have they complied with their own design which was, as the titles of their Books show; to write the Gospel of Christ, and not, part of it? Good Sir. are not the Miracles of our Saviour, a part of the Gospel, and is not your understanding by the whole Gospel (as you declare yourself in the same place) not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes up the covenant between God and man, (which signify all necessary things) a voluntary understanding, and a mere begging of the Question? And by what I have said in this occasion, we may gather, that although scripture should expressly affirm, that itself contains all things necessary, yet without a Living Judge, and authentical Interpreter, we should remayne●ncertayne, of the meaning of that very Text, since the Annotations, upon the Rheims Testament say, that S. Luke wrote all the principal and most necessary things which Jesus began to do and teach, and yet yourself know, that those learned Doctors were far from conceyving that S. Luke's Gospel contains all Points necessary to be believed by Christians. 133. 11. Whether all these Articles of the Christian Faith, without the belief whereof, no man can be saved, be not the principal and most necessary things which I ●sus taught? 134. Answer: Omitting to repeat, what I said about the difference of things principal and necessary, I grant that the Articles of Faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved, are the most necessary things which jesus taught: But you are perpetually begging the Question, in supposing, that all that Jesus taught, concerning the Articles without the belief whereof, no man can be saved, are particularly, expressly, and evidently written, either by S. Luke, or any one, or all, of the Canonical Writters; which you know we deny. 135. 12. Whether many things which S. Luke has wrote in his Gospel, be not less principal, and less necessary than all, and every one of these? 136. Answer: I suppose you would make this Argument: S. Luke hath written many things less principal and less necessary, than those without the belief whereof, no man can be saved: therefore he hath written, all those things without the belief whereof, no man can be saved. But why do you not say? Not only the four Evangelists, but all, and every one of the Canonical Writers, have written many things, which be less principal, and less necessary, than those without the belief whereof, no man can be saved: therefore they have written all such necessary things. You should consider, that things may be principal and necessary, compared to one end, and not principal and necessary in order to another. S. Luke hath not failed to set down all things necessary, for that end, which by inspiration of the Holy Ghost he proposed to himself; which was, beside other causes, ver: great: preventing false Narrations &c: to prove our Saviour to be the Messiah; for attaining of which end, there was no necessity, of expressing all other Articles of Christian Faith: and therefore you cannot gather, that he hath expressed all necessary Points, 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 Canonical Writer, may have prescribed to himself. And therefore as the Writers of scripture, wrote upon several ocasions, and for different ends, we must not determine, what they were obliged to set down, 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 have 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 Points, more principal in themselves, than some other which they set down? Therefore we cannot gather pecisely from the quality of the things in themselves, the necessity of their being set down in writing. 137. Thus, I hope, your Objections, and Demands set out with so great pomp, and demonstration of some hidden mystery, only to amuse some unwary Reader, are answered, and confuted, and demonstrated, to beg the Question, and to contain either manifest falsehood, or to be wholly impertinent: wherein I have stayed the longer; because this Argument taken out of S. Luke, is that whereon you most rely; as also in regard, that what I have said here, will serve a fortiori, to answer the Reasons, which you bring to prove, that every one of the four Evangelists, hath set down all things necessary to be believed, though you think it most certain of S. Luke. 138. This you endeavour to prove (Pag: 210. N. 40.41.42.43.) though (N. 40.) you say only, that of all four it is very probable, but of S. Luke, most apparent; and (N. 43 It is very probable that every one of the four Evangelists has in his book the whole substance, all the necessary parts of the Gospel of Christ. But for S. Luke in my judgement, it ought to be no manner of Question. Now this doubtfulness being acknowledge by you, and your conclusion pretend to be no more than probable, your reasons can be only probable, and some topical congruityes; and then I confute you with your own words (Pag: 60. N. 21.) for ending of civil controversyes, who does not see it is absolutely necessary, that not only judges should be appointed, but that it should be known, and unquestioned who they are? Otherwise, if it were a disputable thing, who were these judges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority, but only some Topical congruityes, would not any man say, such judges in all likelihood would rather multiply Controversyes than end them? If this be true; how will you have us, in matters of Eternity, and of infinitely higher concernment than civil Controversyes, take for a Rule, or as Protestants speak, a judge, every one of the four Gospels, since according to your own Axiom, it is absolutely necessary, that it should be known and unquestioned that they are such. Otherwise if it be a disputable thing, whether they be judges, and we have no certain warrant for their Authority, but only some Topical congruityes, will not any man say, such judges in all likelihood will rather multiply Controversyes than end them? Besides, Christian Faith must rely not upon probable, but on some infallible and undoubted authority, which that Rule, or judge cannot pretend, whose Authority, they, who are to be tried by it, and who appeal to it, directly acknowledge not to be such. Morover, seeing Protestants hold, that scripture is not only the Rule; but the only Rule of Faith, topical Arguments or congruityes, which in other matters might be of some weight, can be of no force with them in this our case. And therefore your endeavours are in vain, unless you bring some text, yea and some evident text of scripture, to prove this tenet; which since you do not, as will appear your arguments and hath been confessed by yourself, I might well reject all your proofs drawn only from humane reasons, as insufficient and impertinent, without any other particular answer. Yet that it may appear, how weak your proofs are, I will examine every one in particular: and I believe they will be found no better than a perpetual begging of the question; and to prove nothing, unless you presuppose that all necessary points must be particularly set down in holy scripture: and that although you seem to multiply arguments, yet indeed you do but repeete the same, to wit, that no reason can be imagined, that any of the Evangelists should omit any thing necessary, and the like conjectures of your own. 139. That this may appear more clearly, let us propose three Propositions: First, the doctrine of Catholics, that scripture taken alone, contains not particularly and evidently all things necessary to salvation: then, that it is doubtful, whether or no, scripture contains 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 beg the Question, or at least prove nothing. 140. Pag: 210. N. 40. you say: What reason can be imagined, that any of them should leave ou● any thing, which he knew to be necessary, and yet put in many things (as apparently all of them have done) which they knew to be only profitable, and not necessary? What wise and honest man, that were now to write the Gospel of Christ, would do so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion: 141. Answer. First; let us apply to this your Objection, the three propositions I mentioned. First, than Catholics believe, that all necessary Points of Faith, are not expressly, and evidently contained in scripture; therefore no reason can be imagined, that any of the Evangelists, hath left out any thing, which he knew to be necessary. Yourself will not approve of this consequence; but we must say the contrary: therefore we can have no reason to believe, that they were obliged to do so, it not being a thing necessary to be done by them, or any Canonical Writer: and, to retort your own words, what reason can be imagined, to oblige them thereto? Therefore unless you expressly presuppose our doctrine (all things necessary are not evidently contained in scrip scripture) 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 Logic, the disputant must prove, and that it is sufficient for the defendant, to stand to his Conclusion, till you can remove him from it, by force of argument? And yet, for the present, I need not make use of this Right, but only abstract from the truth or falsehood, of our most true doctrine in this matter; and therefore; secondly, let us suppose it to be doubtful whether all things necessary are contained in the whole bible. In this case it must remain much more doubtful, (and so, not so much as probable, but only by Imagination) whether every one of the Evangelists hath set down all such things. For, it may be supposed not to be done by every one, but by all of them, or by all the Canonical Writers, collectiuè; as it is the common opinion of Protestants, who therefore, must sol●e your Objections, no less than we Catholics 3. Although we suppose your false Doctrine about the sufficiency of scripture alone, to be positively true, and notonly doubtful; 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 unless you suppose your own tenet, that the scripture alone containeth all things necessary (that is, unless you beg the Question) you cannot so much as pretend, that every one of the Gospels contains all such points. 4. you hold it only probable, that every one of the Evangelists, hath written all necessary points; therefore you believe it cum formidine oppositi, and must think it not impossible, but that some good reason may be alleged (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 Canonical Writers, wrote not their own 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 Counsellor? So you must not expect, that we rely on your Topical congruityes 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 four Evangelists to write; neither more, nor fewer: Why these men were chosen, and not others? Why they wrote no sooner? and not all at once, but at very different times? Why they omit 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? Why other Canonical Writers, writ 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 leave out any thing necessary for the whole Church, as form of Government, Matter and form 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 complied 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 mind, except to condemn you of presumption, in prescribing to the Holy Ghost, what he should have moved the Apostles to write under pain of forfeiting the repute of wise and honest men and of being censured of having done so great a work of God after such a negligent fashion. 143. Thirdly: I Answer. If you will needs have reasons (though we must not rely upon our own reason in matters of this nature) jam sure, betterreasons may be given, to prove that the Evangelists were not obliged, to write all things necessary, than you can with any least ground, bring them under any such burden. 144. First: he who, will impose an obligation upon another, in the first place obliges himself to a positive proof of what he says. 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 denies 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 equal reasons, because neither of them seems to bring any positive proof; but such a denial of an obligation not sufficiently proved, is a solid and convincing reason, grounded upon positive Axiom, Melior est conditio possidentis: in vain therefore do you ask, what reason can be imagined, why any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary &c: it being a most sufficient proof that they had no such obligation, because you can bring no positive proof 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, merely because they do not that, which they had no obligation at all to do? 145. A second reason may be not only imagined, but truly deduced, both from your particular Assertion, and from the general doctrine of Protestants. You teach, that he who wrote the First Gospel, (S. Matthew) delivered evidently all things necessary; which to the other Evangelists might be a very sufficient reason, to hold themselves free, from obligation, of repeeting those things, which had been delivered already with evidence; and, which they did certainly know (if the thing were true) to have been so delivered. And this reason urges yet more, concerning S. Luke, who written his Gospel after S. Matthew, and S. Mark had written theirs, and as I said, did know certainly, that they had written all necessary points, if indeed they had done so. Lastly. S. John, before he wrote his Gospel, had seen the Gospels of the other three Evangelists, beside other canonical scriptures, and therefore might with good reason, think himself disobliged, from doing that which had been done by so many before him. And that Holy Spirit which directed the first Writer of scripture, (S. Matthew) foreseeing all future Canonical writings, in which, many necessary points were to be expressed, might, even according to your humane discourse, move him to omit 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, believed to be God's word, is a much as a million of times. Now, from the general doctrine of Protestants, that all necessary things are contained in the whole scripture collectiuè, not in every part thereof, a clear reason may be taken, to disoblige the Evangelists from writing, that which they were sure, could not but be written in other parts or books of holy scripture, because that Doctrine implies, that the sole-sufficiency of scripture, is perfectly asserted and maintained, if all necessary Points be contained in the whole Bible, though they be not all set down, in any one Part, or book thereof. 146. A third reason may be taken from the End which moved the Evangelists to write, which, as I have often said, being not to make a catechism, or a Sum of Christian Doctrine; what reason can be imagined, that any of them, should think himself obliged to set down in particular all necessary points? 147. Will you have a Fourth reason? Let it be this (which may also serve for a wholesome and necessary document for you, and such as you are) we have good reason to believe, that the Holy Ghost thought not fit to express either in the Gospels, or other Parts of Scriptures all necessary things, that we might be put upon a wholesome and happy necessity of exercising humility in ourselves, and obedience to God's Church, and to our Saviour himself, who said (Luke 10.16) He that hears you hears me, and (Matth. 18.17.) If he hear not the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen, or Publican; together with a dependence of one man upon another, as it was said to S. Paul even in that great vision (Act. 9 V 7.) Go into the city. And it shallbe told thee what thou art to do; and to him who was cured of the leprosy, (Matth. 8.4.) Go, show thyself to the Priest: As also for procuring peace and unity in Religion, which cannot be conserved, if all controversyes must be tried by scripture alone, that being in effect, to leave every man to his own wit, will, and ways, 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 prove by an example, in these words. Suppose Xaverius had been to write the Gospel of Christ for the Indians, think you he would have left out any fundamental Doctrine of it? 149. Answer. Are these Arguments taken from evident Texts of scripture, as yours against us ought to be in this point, which is the only foundation of Protestantisme? If you tell us what you mean in this particular Objection by the Gospel of Christ, yourself may easily answer for us, out of what hath been said already. We have heard you saying; By the Gospel of Christ, I understand not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes up the covenant between God and man. Now then to your example; I Answer: that if S. Xaverius had intended to write the Gospel as it signify the History of Christ, he had not been obliged, to write all necessary Points, as neither the Evangelists, who wrote the Gospel, were obliged to do; and it is strange, that we denying it of them, you would seek to prove it only by changing the person, as if any would attribute more to S. Xaverius, than to the Evangelists. But if S. Xaverius had purposed to write, not the History of our B. Saviour, as the Evangelists did, but a Catechism, or sum of Christian doctrine, or the Gospel as it signify (to use your words) all that makes up the Covenant between God and man, which the Evangelists did not intent, than what you say, or imagine of S. Xaverius, cannot be applied to the Evangelists, seeing in that case, their ends in writing, had been very different. Nevertheless, even upon this supposition, that S. Xaverius had purposed to write a Catechism, we must consider some particular circumstances, before we can affirm, that he was obliged to write all necessary points of Faith: for example, if that Saint had been assured, that in his absence, and for all future times, there would never be wanting Preachers, Teachers, Prelates, Pastors, and Apostolical men, to instruct Christians, convert Infidels, and supply abundantly by word of mouth, and a perpetual Succession, and Tradition, whatsoever was not expressed in such a Catechism (as de facto we see God in his Goodness hath furnished the Indieses, with so many Pastors, Preachers etc. that no one Cathecisme is absolutely necessary:) in that case, I say no man can judge, that S. Xaverius had been obliged to leave in writing, precisely every particularnecessary Point, but only such as, Time, Place, Persons, and all other particular circumstances considered, should in prudence seem most for the purpose: and such a Catechism, together with those other helps, had been a most sufficient Means for that End, which S. Xaverius had proposed to himself, upon the said supposition of Pastors etc. Now, this is our case. The Evangelists were most certain, that Hell-gates could no● prevail against the Church (Matth. 16.) that there should be a perpetual Succession of Pastors; that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1. Timot. 3.) that he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors etc. that now we be not children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, in the wickedness of men, in craftyness, to the circumvention of error; (Ephesi. 4.) Where we see, that for avoiding errors, Scripture alone is not appointed as the only Means, yea is not so much as mentioned, but Apostles, Pastors, Doctors etc. to the world's end. To which purpose; ancient S. Irenaeus (Lib. 3. Cap. 4.) speaks very fully in these words; What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures? aught we not to have followed the order and tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches? to which order, many nations yielded assent, who believe in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of God, without letters, or ink, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition. It is easy to receive the truth from God's Church, seeing the Apostles have most fully deposited in her, as in a rich storehouse, all things belonging to truth. It is therefore clear, 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 do so; therefore, neither S. Xaverius in the like case and circumstances, had been obliged thereto; and not argue as you do; S. Xaverius should have been obliged to do so; therefore we must say the same of the Apostles. I will not stand here to say, that although S. Xaverius had been obliged, to set down all Points necessary to be believed, by every private person, as such: yet, I hope you would not have obliged him, to express all things necessary for the whole Church, as I said in the beginning; which yet is a most necessary thing. 150. But here occurs a difficulty, which will show your example of S. Xaverius, or of any other, to be not only insufficient, or impertinent, but also impossible and chimerical, 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 fundamental points, but that men may be sure not to fail in believing all such Articles, if they believe all that is evidently found in scripture, which clearly contains all necessary things in particular, and many more. If then S. Xaverius could not know precisely, what points in particular be fundamental, how will you oblige him, or any other, not to omit any one such point? Neither I do understand how in your principles, any man can set down all necessary points, in such manner as he may be sure to omit none, except by referring them to scripture, or procuring that they have either the whole bible (according to the common opinion of other Protestants) or at least, the Gospel of S. Luke, which you hold for certain that it contains all necessary points (for of the other three Evangelists you are doubtful) which is a strange kind of composing a Catechism; and yet there can be no other perfect Catechism made, either by Catholics or Protestants, according to your grounds for the reason which I have given. 151 By what I have said, all your other demands or objections are answered If (say you) every one of them have not in them all necessary doctrines, how have they complied with their own design, which was, as the titles of their Books show, to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how have they not deceived us in giving them such titles? By the whole Gospel of Christ, I understand, not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes up the covenant between God and man. 152. Answer. Here is nothing but begging the Question, in supposing without any proof, that the design of the Evangelists was to write, not the whole History of Christ, but all that makes up the Covenant between God and man, (that is, all things necessary to salvation) which is the very Point in Question; and a contradicting yourself in saying, that the design of the Evangelists was, as the titles of their Books show, to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it: and yet you say expressly, that you understand not the whole History of Christ, but all that which makes up the covenant between God and man; which is but a part of the Gospel, which contains many Histories and truths not necessary to salvation. Yea we see, that S. Matthew gins his Gospel in an Historical, not a dogmatic way, saying; The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ. S, Mark saith: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and then passeth to the History of the appearing, baptising, and preaching of S. John Baptist. S. Luke after the Preface to his Gospel (which Preface is a brief history or narration) gins his Gospel with History; There was in the days of Herod the King of Jewrie a certain Priest named Zacharie, etc. S. John indeed gins his Gospel with a sublime point of doctrine; In the beginning was the word, etc. against Ebion, one of your progenitors, who denied Christ to be the Son of God, consubstantial to his Father; and accordingly says, (Cap: 20.31.) These are written, that you may believe, that Jesus Christ is the son of God: which shows, that his purpose was, not to make a Catechism, or set down 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 gave testimony of our Saviour, to show that his purpose was to write the History of Christ, as the other three did, and not to make a Catechism, as I said. 153. But then say you, How have they complied with their own design, which was, as the titles of their Books show to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how have they not deceyved us in giving them such titles? 154. Answer. I have often told you, that they have written the whole Gospel, 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 therefore not the titles deceive you, but you deceive 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 little of any, except of S. Paul, nor all that might have been said of him; because he sets down 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. count. Gentil.) teacheth, that Book to be so called, not that it contains all the Acts, nor of all, but only of one or two, and▪ even of those, such as were easy to be set down. Nay if we speak in all rigour, the word Evangelium, which signify, Good tidings, is verified, though one writ not all good tidings and so, Evangelium secundum Mattheum, signify good tidings delivered by S. Matthew, or the Book of good tidings written by S. Matthew, which is literally true, though that Book contain not all necessary Points. The same I say of the other Evangelists: And this observation doth clearly make void all your Arguments. 155. But in this place also, a difficulty offers itself, which, I bebelieve, you will not answer, otherwise than by acknowledging some contradiction, and which turns upon yourself that which you impose upon us, as if it did follow from our Doctrine, that the Evangelists wrote not the Gospel, but only a part of it; whereas yourself alone are guilty of such a sequel, where you say; By the whole Gospel, I understand not the whole history of Christ, but all that makes up the covenant between God and man. Whereas therefore, the Gospel, according to your own Division, may signify two things, and contain two parts, namely, The whole History of Christ; And, all that makes up the Covenant between God and man, (that is, all things necessary to salvation) you restrain the Gospel to the second part; and so you must answer your own Objection, How have they complied with their onwe design, which was, as the Titles of their Books show, to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it? You say then; they writ not the Gospel, but a part of it: And yet you also say, that their design was to write, the Gospel, and not a part of it; which is a plain contradiction as I touched above. Again, you and every one must affirm that the Title, Gospel etc. as it signify the History of Christ, is not taken universally for the whole History of Christ, and then how can you with any show of probability prove, that the same Title, must be taken universally, as it is referred to Points necessary to be believed? The titles themselves say not universally, the whole or all the Gospel of Christ, but indefinitely, Gospel of Christ; and by what Authority can you draw them unto an universal signification, and an universal of your own, to wit, of all necessary Points? 156. And here, I make the same Argument, which I made about the word all in S. Luke; and ask, whether the Gospel of Christ signify absolutely all things both necessary and profitable; or else 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 jesus began to do and teach must not at least imply all the principal and necessary things? You cannot say without contradicting S. John, that the Gospel of Christ signify absolutely all things, both necessary and profitable; or only things necessary, it being manifest, that the Evangelists have written many things not necessary; and you will not say, that it signify only, things only profitable, which would overthrow your Assertion, that they have written all things necessary: And therefore it remains, according to your manner of discoursing, that it signify, at least all things necessary, which cannot be said without absurdity, as if the Evangelists, and S. Mark in particular, who begins thus (The beginning of the Gospel of jesus Christ the Son of God,) as part of his Gospel, had been doubtful whether they wrote only things necessary, or both necessary and profitable; and therefore to be sure not to err did add, at least. 157. Before I ptoceed, one thing is to be observed, to wit, that it seems you are of Opinion, that the Evangelists, themselves gave the titles to their own Books; For you say: if every one of them have not in them all necessary doctrines, how have they complied with then own design, which was, as the Titles of their Books show, to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it? Or how have they not deceyved us, in giving them such Titles? 158. But in this you are mistaken; which beside other reasons, appears sufficiently by this; that the inscription or Title of all the Gospels, is the very same, only the name of every particular Evangelist being changed; and S. Mark, beside his particular manner of beginning his Gospel, with these words, (The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the son of God) hath also the same common Title, which is prefixed before the other Gospels, with difference, only of his name. And it is not likely S. Mark would have repeated the same words. In Protestant bibles Ann: 1586. 1596. I find this Title; The holy Gospel of jesus christ according to Mark: (and the same they say of the other Gospels, respective) but Ann: 1611. and 1622. they say; The Gospel according to S. Mark, where we see different words, and some, such as the Evangelists would not have used, calling themselves Saints, or terming their own writing, The holy Gospel of jesus Christ. Do you think, that S. Paul, for example, for his Epistle to the Romans, gave this Title, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, over and above that, which he hath in the beginning of the Epistle itself; 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 believe, that S. John premised before his (The second Epistle of John) notwitstanding that in the Epistle itself he saith; The Seniour to the lady Elect, and her children; the like I say of the third? Epistle which, gins, the Seniour to Caius the dearest. If then these titles were not given by the Evangelists, they have not deceyved you in giving such titles, which they never gave; nor can it be gathered, as you infer that they have not complied with their own design, which was, as the Titles of their Books show, to write the Gospel of Christ, and not a part of it; seeing, as I said, those Titles are not theirs. Besides, if those Titles were not given by the Evangelists, all your Arguments grounded on them, are no proofs taken out of Holy Scripture, which alone you ought to bring in the Principles of Protestants. By the way, I know not whether Protestants reflect, that they have in their bibles, and read publicly, apocryphal Writings, that is, not Divine scripture, which yet commonly most of them take to be scripture, I mean, the Titles of the Gospels, Epistles; and I might add, distinction of Chapters and Verses etc. And even out of the Premises, I may conclude; that if the meaning of the Titles of Canonical books (and in particular, that which S: Mark hath in the beginning of his Gospel, which is a part of Scripture) be not clear, who can believe, that the meaning of the scripture itself is evident? 159. You go forward and say: If this (all that makes up the Covenant between God and man) be wholly contained in the Gospel of S. Mark, and S. john, every considering man will be inclinable to believe, that then without doubt it is contained in the larger Gospels of S. Matthew, and S. Luke. 160. Answer. You know we deny your supposition, that all necessary Points are written in the Gospels of S. Mark and S. John. And though your supposition or Antecedent were true, yet your consequence or deduction is so weak, that without doubt no considering man willbe inclinable to approve it. For, what a poor consequence is this? The Gospels of S. Matthew, and S. Luke are larger than the Gospels of S. Mark, and S. John; Therefore if these contain all necessary Points, those also must contain them: As if some, or many, or all necessary Points might not be set down within a small compass, and none at all written in a larger Volume. How many large Chapters are there in scripture, which you will acknowledge, not to contain any one necessary Point of Christian belief? And yet the Apostles Creed, which Dr. Potter, and you affirm to contain all necessary Points of Faith, consists not of very many words. It is likely, you are of opinion, 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 Gospel may be truly said, to be no larger than another, because every man will be inclinable to believe, that three lines may be as well contained in a book of three Chapters, as in a Volume of a great bulk; as ten cubits may be esteemed as large, as twenty, for the effect of containing a body of one cubit. In fine, all these your topical toys, prove nothing, till first you prove positively and solidly, out of scripture, that all necessary Points must necessarily be expressed in scripture, and consequently that that was particularly the intent of the Evangelists. Let us see what proofs you can bring that S. Mark and S. John, have written all things necessary to be believed. 161. You say (P: 210. N. 40. and 41) that S. Mark wants no necessary Article of this covenant, I presume you will not deny, if you believe Irenaeus when he says, Matthew to the Hebrews in their tongue published the Scripture of the Gospel, when Peter and Paul did preach the Gospel and founded the Church or a Church at Rome, or of Rome, and after their departure, Mark the scholar of Peter, delivered to us in writing, those things which had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the follower of Paul, compiled in a Book the Gospel which was preached by him: and afterward, john residing in Asia, in the City of Ephesus, did himself also set forth a Gospel. Having set down these words of S. Irenaeus, you urge them thus; (Pag: 211. N. 41.) In which words of Irenaeus, it is remarkable that they are spoken by him against some Heretics, that pretended (as you know, who do now a days) that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospel, were unwritten, and that out of the Scriptures, truth (he must mean, sufficient truth) cannot be found by those which know not tradition. Against whom to say, that part of the Gospel which was preached by Peter, was written by S. Mark, and some other necessary parts of it omitted, had been to speak impertinently, and rather to confirm, than confute their error. It is plain therefore, that be must mean, as I pretend, that all the necessary doctrine of the Gospel, which was preached by S. Peter, was written by S. Mark. Now you will not deny I presume, that S. Peter preached all, therefore you must not deny, that S. Mark wrote all. In your Margin you cite S. Irenaeus (Lib. 3. Cap. 2.) 162. Answer: you set nor down the Book or Chapter for the first place which you cite out of S. Irenaeus: I have found it, and find that your ill dealing is so very exorbitant, and manifold, that I scarcely know where to begin the discovery, or how to exaggerate sufficiently your fraud. 163 First: In those words which you cite, (they are Lib. 3. Cap. 1. adversus Haereses) it is only said, that the four Evangelists wrote their several Gospels, 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 seem to look that way, or to be for your purpose in any other respect, as shall appear anon. But your misery is, that still you suppose that all necessary things must be expressed in scripture, and in virtue of that begging supposition, you extend indefinite Propositions, as if they were universal, and yet did signify not absolutely all, as universalls are wont to do, but determinately for your purpose all things necessary for salvation; whereas S. Irenaeus hath neither the word all, nor the words necessary Articles. Your chief or only care should have been, to prove positively a necessity, that all things necessary should have been written, in every one of the Gospels, and then you might with some more show of reason turn indefinite, into universal, propositions: but your negative way, or only ask questions, what reason can be imagined, that any of them should leave out any thing which he knew to be necessary &c: will not satisfy. S. Irenaeus teaches, that S. Mark delivered to us in writing, those things which had been preached by Peter; but doth he say, all those things which had been preached by Peter? He neither did, nor could say so, the thing being in itself manifestly untrue. For, S. Peter delivered many things by word of mouth, which neither S. Mark, nor any other of the Evangelists have written, as we may learn from S. John, (Chap. 21.) and S. Mark omitts divers things which the other Evangelists and canonical Writers have written, and can you affirm, that S. Peter delivered none of those points? And in particular, could he be silent of the Incarnation and birth and other mysteries of our Saviour Christ, till his baptism, which yet S. Mark omitts, as we noted above? It is therefore evident, that S. Irenaeus could not mean, that S. Mark wrote whatsoever S. Peter delivered, and therefore he wrote only some, and not all. This than must be your Argument: S. Peter preached all the necessary doctrine of the Gospel, and much more; but S. Mark wrote only some, and not all that S. Peter preached, therefore S. Mark wrote all the necessary doctrine of the Gospel, and more. An Argument like to this: God knows all things. Mr Chillingworth knows some, but not all things that God knows therefore Mr. Chillingworth knows all things. Eusebius (Lib. 5. Hist. C. 8.) citys S. Irenaeus thus: Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter committed to writing, those things which he had received from him: where we see no universal, but only an indefinite proposition Neither did it make any thing to S. Irenaeus. his purpose to treat whether or no, the Evangelists, or other Canonical Writers, did set down all necessary points. For, he wrote against certain absurd Heretics, when denied, that God created Heaven and earth, or breached some other such pernicious fooleries, which might be confuted out of scripture, though it do not contain all other necessary points of Faith: And it is too much boldness (another would call it impudence) in you, to say, that in the words of Irenaeus, it is remarkable, that they are spoken by him against some Heretics, that pretended that some necessary Doctrines of the Gospel were unwritten, and that out of the Scriptures, truth (he must mean, sufficient truth) cannot be found by those which know not tradition; and for this you cite S. Irenaeus (Lib: 3. Cap: 2.) and (Pag: 346. N. 30) you say, Irenaeus had to do with Heretics, who, somewhat like those who would be the only Catholics, declining a trial by Scripture, as not containing the Truth of Christ perfectly, and not fit to decide Controversyes without recourse to Tradition &c: But in this, your fraud is intolerable. For, those Heretics, of whom S. Irenaeus speaks, when Catholics did allege scripture, excepted not against it because it did not contain all necessary truths, or not the truth of Christ perfectly, (which exception could nothing avail them, it being sufficient for confutation of their particular heresy, if the scripture did contain as much as was contradictory to their errors, 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 itself; as may be seen in that very third Book and second Chapter, which you allege against us, in the words which now I have cited out of you; and therefore 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 scriptures, neque Traditionibus obsequantur haeretici: That Heretics obey neither Scripture, nor Traditions.) begins that Chapter with these words; When they are convinced out of Scripture, they fall upon accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not right, nor of sufficient authority, and that they did 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.) allege out of S. Irenaeus, and say; The Father's urged 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 mean say you, wholly) but by word of mouth, and that thereupon Paul also said, we speak wisdom amongst the perfect. But the word, wholly, in your parenthesis is wholly your own false gloss, to make those Heretics seem like to us Catholics; whereas it is plain, as we have heard out of your own confession, that those Heretics held scripture unfit to prove any truth at all, and not only unfit to prove all necssary truths; because they held it not to be the infallible word of God, but to contain falsehoods and contradictions: and your conscience cannot but bear witness, that we do not deny the sufficiency of scripture alone, and necessity of tradition, upon any such Atheistical persuasion as that was. 164. This also appears by S. Irenaeus in the first Chapter of the same Book which you cited, where he saith against those Heretics; Neither is it lawful to say, that they preached, before they had receyved perfect knowledge, as some presume to say, boasting that they are correctors 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 fear and trembling, your own doctrine, that the Apostles did err, about preaching the Gospel to Gentiles; 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 we 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 therefore you do in this perfectly agree. This also appears by the words of S. Irenaeus (Lib: 1. Cap: 29) where he saith of Martion the Heretic; he persuaded his disciples, that his word was more to be believed, than the Apostles who delivered the Gospel. 165. You could not also but speak against your conscience, while you liken the Tradition which Catholics believe, to those of the said wicked Heretics, 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 allege, and therefore you. are inexcusable in laying to our charge the traditions of those men. For, S. Irenaeus in the same (Lib: 3. Cap: 2.) having said, that when those Heretics 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 Apostles, have found out the sincere truth. And so it comes to pass, that they assent neither to scripture, nor Tradition. Which is agreeable to the Title of that Chapter; Quod neque scriptures etc. as I said above. Whereby it appears, that they rejected Catholic Traditions derived from the Apostles by succession of Pastors; and therefore when they appeal to Tradition, it was to certain secret traditions of their own men; which even yourself (Pag. 344. N. 28.) affirm out of S. Irenaeus, where you say, that Catholics alleged Tradition much more credible than that secret tradition to which those heretics pretended against whom he [S. Irenaeus] wrote. And (Pag. 345. N. 29.) You speak most clearly and effectually to your own confutation. For there, you make a paraphrase of some words of S. Irenaeus, and make him speak in this manner: You heretics decline a trial of your doctrine by scripture, as being corrupted and imperfect, and not fit to determine Controversyes with out recourse to Tradition, and instead thereof, you fly for refuge to a secret tradition, which you pretend that you received from your Antecessours. Do not these words declare, both that those heretics held scripture to be corrupted; and that they relied upon certain hidden and vain traditions of their own? As contrarily, it is evident out of S. Irenaeus, that the Fathers were wont to convince heretics 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 alleging him to the contrary, whereas it is most certain, and evident, that this holy Father writes most effectually in favour of Traditions descending to us by a continued succession, of Bishops and Pastors, and particularly of the Bishops of Rome, whose succession and names he setteth down to his time, as may be seen (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 us. And this is a most full demonstration, that it is one and the same lifegiving Faith which from the Apostles to this time hath been in the Church conserved and delivered in truth. I beseech the Reader for the good of his own soul, to read what this holy Father writes of traditions (Lib. 3. C. 4.25.40.) and (Lib. 4. C. 43.) where he hath these remarkable words; wherefore we ought to obey those Priests which are in the Church, and have succession from the Apostles, who with Episcopal succession have receyved the certain gift of truth, according to the pleasure of the Father. But others who depart from the principal succession, and have their conventicles in what place soever, we ought to hold for suspected, either as Heretics, and of ill doctrine, or as schismatics, and proud, and pleasing themselves, or else as hypocrites, doing these things for lucre and vainglory. And yet further (L. 4. C. 45.) he hath these words: Paul teaching us where we may find such, (he means Faithful persons, whom our Lord hath placed over 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 Doctors where therefore the gifts of our Lord are placed, there we ought to learn the truth, with whom there is a succession of the Church from the Apostles, and that is constantly kept which is wholesome, unblemished 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 err.) For, those men do keep our Faith which is in one God who made all things, and expound to us the scriptures without danger. And the same he saith (L. 4 C. 63.) yea even whitaker Controu: 1. 9 Q. C. 9 saith; We confess with Irenaeus, the Authority of the Church to be firm, and a compendious demonstration of Canonical doctrine a posteriori. Where we see Whitaker speaks of doctrine, and not only of conserving and consigning scripture to us. And S. Epiphanius is so clear for traditions (Heresi 61.) we must use traditions, for the scripture hath not all things, and therefore the Apostles delivered certain things by writing, and certain by tradition; (with whom agrees S. Basile de spiritui sancto, (Cap. 27.) saying some things we have from scripture, other things from the Apostles tradition &c: both which have like force unto godliness) that Dr. Reynolds in his conclusions annexed to his conference (1. conclus: Pag. 689.) answering to these say of S. Epiphanius, and S. Basil, saith; I took not upon me to control them; but let the Church judge, if they considered with advice enough. &c: And for other Fathers both Greek and Latin, they are so plain for tradition against the sufficiency of scripture taken alone, that (as may be seen in Brierley, Tract: 1. sect. 3. subdivis. 12.) whereas S. chrysostom saith (in 2. ad Thessaly: 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 thereto saith: I answer, This is an inconsiderate speech and unworthy so great a Father. And whereas (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 certain unwritten law; Whitaker, (Pag: 668.) saith thereto: I answer, that this testimony is plain enough, but of no force to be receyved, because it is against the Scripture. And of S. Austin, Cartwright saith; (in Mr. whitgift's Defence, Pag: 103.) If S. Austin's judgement be a good judgement, than there be some things commanded of God, which are not in the Scriptures. Yea, not to insist upon every particular Father, Kemnitius (Exam: Part: 1. Pag: 87.89.90.) reproves for their like testimony of unwritten Traditions, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen. Epiphanius, Hierome, Maximus, Theophilus, Basil, Damascen: &c: Fulk also confesses as much of chrysostom, Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierome, &c: And Whitaker acknowledgeth the like of Chrysost: Epiphanius, Tertullian, Austin, Innocentius, Leo, Basil, Eusebius, Damascene, etc. Now sir, are not these Fathers and Ancient Doctors, who teach that the Apostles have not delivered all things in writing, directly opposite to your contrary Assertion, so often repeated, but without any proof, which you know is but to beg the Question? Of people without succession of Pastors, which is the ground of Tradition, we may truly say as Optatus saith of the Donatists (Lib. 2. cont. Parm.) Sunt sine Patribus filii etc. They are children without Fathers, disciples without masters, and in a prodigious manner begotten and borne of themselves. 166. I will make an end of this matter, if first I have noted, that it is a false gloss of yours, (like to that which I have noted above) and directly against S. Irenaeus, that when he saith; those Heretics taught, that truth cannot be found by those who know not Tradition, he must mean sufficient truth, as if those heretics had agreed with Catholics, that all truth is not sufficiently contained in scripture alone; whereas S. Irenaeus expressly declares the doctrine of those Heretics to have been, that the scriptures were not right, and came not from good authority, but were various one from another, as I have showed, and yourself affirm 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 us of any truth at all. Whereas you say; (to have said against those Heretics, that, part of the Gospel which was preached by Peter, was written by S. Mark, and some necessary parts of it omitted, had been to speak impertinently▪ and rather to confirm than confute their error. 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 Heretics by saying, that part of the Gospel was written, and some part omitted; but by proving that the scriptures were true, and of infallible authority, which they denied; and also, that beside scripture, there are true Catholic Traditions (opposite to the foolish traditions of those Heretics) from which, truth may be learned: both which Points S. Irenaeus proves, and so confutes the double error of those heretics, that truth could be found, neither by the scriptures, nor by the Traditions of Catholics; and thereby expressly makes good such Traditions, and that both out of scripture and Tradition we may learn some Points of Christian Faith; which is directly against that very thing, for which you allege him, and proves my chief intent, that scripture is not the only Rule of Faith. To which purpose, I beseech you, hear your own words [Pag: 345. N. 29.] where you bring S. Irenaeus [Lib. 3. Cap. 2.] speaking thus to those Heretics; Your calumnies against Scripture are most , but yet moreover assure yourselves, that if you will be tried by Tradition, even by that also you will be overthrown. For our Tradition is far more famous, more constant, and in all respects more credible than that which you pretend to. It were easy for me, to muster up against you the vninterrupted Successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles, all conspiring in their testimonies against you: But because it were too long to number up the Successions of all Churches, I will content myself 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 have set down, falsify his sense: (And therefore I beseech the Reader to examine the place) yet this is sufficient to show, by your own confession, what was the judgement of this glorious Saint and Martyr concerning Traditions, and the no-necessity that all Points of Faith should have been written, since we may receive them from the Church. 167. By the way: For what mystery do you go about to prove that S. Mark hath written all things necessary, because S. Irenaeus (Lib. 3. Cap. 1.) saith; Mark S. Peter's disciple, delivered to us in writing those things which S. Peter had preached; and yet do not apply the same proof to S. Luke, of whom S. Irenaeus in the same place, saith: Luke a follower of Paul, wrote down the Gospel which had been preached by him. (S. Paul.) To what purpose would you go the further way about, first proving, that S. Mark hath all necessary points, and from the nce inferring, that S. Luke whose Gospel is larger than that of S. Mark▪ must needs have written all such things? When as you might have immediately 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 pass to S. John, whom (Pag. 211. N. 42.) you would prove to have written all necessary points, because he saith; Many other signs also did jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this Book: But these are written, that you may believe that jesus is Christ the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name, (John. 20. V 31.) By (these are written) may be understood, either those things are written, or these signs are written. Take it which way you will, this conclusion will certainly follow, That either all that which S. john wrote in his Gospel, or less than all, and therefore all much more was sufficient to make them believe that which being believed with lively Faith, would certainly bring them to eternal life. 169. Answer: Of this Text we have spoken already. Who would ever have dreamt of this Argument? S. John set down in his Gospel as much of the Miracles which our B. Saviour wrought, as was sufficient to oblige men to believe that he was the Son of God: Therefore he set down 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 believe 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 Messiah, is no Christian. Doth the Apostles Creed consist only of that Point? And yet Potter and you say, it contains only things belonging to Faith. Do not many Heretics believe that Point? Yea if they did not believe that Article, they were not Heretics, but Jews, Turks, or infidels, and Aposttaes from Christian Faith. Suppose S. John had written only some Miracles, sufficient to prove Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, without mentioning any other doctrinal point at all, who will say, that he had evidently set down all things necessary to salvation? And S. John (Epist. 1. C. 2. V ●.) saith: these things I writ to you that you may not sin: as he saith in his Gospel; These things are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is Christ, the son of God. Therefore as you will not say, that in that Epistle he evidently sets down all Points of Faith, and other conditions required for keeping the commandments, and avoiding 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 writ to you, that your joy may be full; yet the contents of that Epistle alone could not give full joy, 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 believe, and shallbe baptised shall be saved, Mark (16.16.) and yet Historical Faith alone, even according to Calvinists, together with baptism, is not sufficient for salvation. Luther (Postilla in Dominic. 5. post Pasch.) saith, Here we see, that to believe in Christ, doth not consist in believing that Christ is one Person which is God and man. For, this would avail no man. Sadeel (Resp: ad Artic: abjurat: 33. Pag 495.) saith; it is not enough to believe that jesus Christ came into the world; that he suffered death; that he risen again, and ascended into Heaven: for, this Historical Faith will not save me. This you did see, and therefore to help the matter, you closely add, that S. John wrote sufficient to make men believe that which being believed with lively Faith, would certainly bring them to eternal life. With lively Faith? Therefore not by believing that Point alone, Jesus is the Son of God. A lively Faith signify the belief of all other Points of Faith, and all things necessary for keeping all the Commandments; and you should have proved, that S. John sets down in his Gospel evidently all Points belonging to Faith and manners. Here I must put you in mind, of your doctrine, that there cannot be given a Catalogue of necessary or fundamental 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, jesus Christ is the Son of God, will certainly bring men to eternal life. 170. But indeed is this Point which you allege, clear and evident in S. John's Gospel? You could scarcely have picked out a place, or Point, less for your, and more for our, purpose. Do not Protestants differ both from catholics and amongst themselves about the Consubstantiality, Merit, and Satisfaction of out B. Saviour? And for that which you say was S. John's prime intent in writing his Gospel, credatis, That you may believe, do not you in this, differ from other Protestants toto genere, as much as a belief only probable and fallible, differs from a most certain and infallible assent? And concerning the words, that you may have life in his name, do not you and your Socinian brethren, differ from other Protestants, who believe the Value of our Saviour's works, his Merit, Satisfaction for our sins, and Redemption of mankind? And so (in his name) must be understood, by different Protestants, in a very different sense, which is the life of scripture. In which main differences, you in your Principles will not say, but that many, or divers, or at least, some, Protestants, do sincerely seek the true meaning of scripture, and therefore could not disagree among themselves, and from Catholics, if those words of S. John were evident, according to your own Rule. That a thing is not evident, when men so qualifyed, disagree about it. Catholic Bishops did overthrow the Arians, (who made no end of alleging scripture for their Heresy) by Tradition, and the word homoousion, which is not found in scripture. And so you could not have brought any Text of greater strength to prove the necessity of Tradition, and of a Living Judge, than this, which you allege for the evidence and sufficiency of scripture alone: and if this Text itself be so difficult, how can you by it prove, 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 therefore that they intended to speak plain, even to the capacity of the simplest. A pretty paradox! that the simplest are able to learn with certainty, out of the bare words of scripture alone, the most sublime mysteries of Christian Religion, which is more than the learned can do without observing divers Rules exceeding the capacity of the unlearned; and yet this absurdity cannot be avoided, if scripture alone be the sole Rule of Faith: because God hath provided means of salvation both for the learned and unlearned: and therefore if there be no other means beside scripture, it must be clear to all sorts of people. What is this but to cast men into despair? 171. By what hath been said, there offers itself 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 something 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 undertaken, by halves? If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them, considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work, then certainly it most evidently follows, that every one of them writ the whole Gospel of Christ; I mean, all the essential and necessary parts of it. In which words you do nothing but beg the Question, still supposing that the Evangelists were obliged to set down 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 seems you are resolved never to do so. And here also you take upon you to limit the Gospel to the essential and necessary parts of it; of which your voluntary restriction I have already said enough. 172. But Sr. I cannot choose but ask you, upon the occasion which here you give; how you can say, that ignorance or negligence cannot without blasphemy be imputed to the Evangelists? seeing (Pag. 144. N. 31.) you affirm, that the Apostles even after the sending of the Holy Ghost, were, and through inadvertence, or prejudice, continued for a time, in an error repugnant to a revealed truth, and against our Saviour's express warrant and injunction: and (Pag. 137. N. 2.) you teach, that the Church of the Apostles time, did err against a revealed truth through prejudice or inadvertence, or some other cause; which last general 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 err 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 hereafter. Now I will only touch that which I noted before, how little credit, or authority your reasons ought to have with any judicious person, since you acknowledge it to be but probable, that every one of the Evangelsts hath written all things necessary, and yet you would needs have your proofs thereof to be certain and evident. Thus we have heard you say (Pag. 211.42.) Take it as you will, this conclusion will certainly follow, that all that which S. john wrote in his Gospel was sufficient to make them believe, that which being believed with lively Faith, would certainly bring them to eternal 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 unless we will blaspheme and accuse the Evangelists either or ignorance, or malice, or negligence, certainly it most evidently follows, that every one of them writ the whole Gospel of Christ; I mean, all the essential 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 else this (which in effect is all one with the former) what reasonn can be imagined, that they should not write all things necessary, and yet set down many things only profitable? For, unless you presuppose this reason (which is common to all the Evangelists) you have no ground to affirm, that the words of S. Luke (all that Jesus began to do and teach) must signify determinately all necessary things, as I have often said; and so upon the matter, you have the same reason for all the four Evangelists, which is no more than the same begging of the Question. 174. But what need we use many reasons? Our eyes can witness, that the Evangelists have not written all necessary Points of Faith. For, (to omit, that they have not set down the matter and form of Sacraments, the form 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 Eternal generation of the Son of God, wherewith S. john begins his Gospel, In the beginning was the word etc. S. Mark is silent of the Incarnation of our Lord in the womb of the B. Virgin by virtue of the Holy Ghost; His Birth, and all other mysteries of his sacred life till his age of thirty years. S Luke, as also S Mark; omits the giving power to forgive sins. (joan. 20. V 22.23.) and (Matth. 18. V 18.) which is a chief Article of our Creed, I believe the remission of sins. S. john wrote nothing of the Annunciation, Nativity, Circumcision, Epiphany, and Ascension of our Saviour Christ; and according to Protestants, he speaks not of the Eucharist. For, they deny that [Cap. 6.] he speaks of that Sacrament: And consequently, communion under both kinds, which they hold to be a Divine precept, and therefore necessary to salvation, is omitted by him; as also our Lord's prayer. All of them have omitted in their Gospels, that which is expressed [Act. 2.] about the sending of the Holy Ghost; and the Decrees of the Council of the Apostles, (Act. 15.) wherein amongst other things, they declare, that it was not necessary to observe the Mosaical Law, which is a most important and necessary point. I have been longer in answering this objection, as containing many heads and divers Arguments of the same nature, which I thought best not to divide. Let us now see what more you can object. 175. Object 3. (Pag: 93. N. 105.) If men cannot understand by scripture, enough for their salvation, why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy, the scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation? 376. Answer: First, It is not said, the scriptures alone are able to make one wise to salvation: And if you had dealt honestly, and not concealed what went before and after, it would have been clear, that S. Paul speaks not of scripture alone; and of what scripture he speaks; and how scripture may instruct to salvation; which points being well considered, it will appear, that this Text is so far from proving what you intent, that it makes against you. S. Paul (V 14. and 15.) saith; Tu vero permane, etc. 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 known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the Faith that is in Christ jesus. In which words S. Paul speaks of things which Timothy had learned of him (though out of humility and modesty he concealed, his own name as he doth 2. Cor. 12.2. scio hominem &c I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, etc.) beside scriptures, which Timothy had known from his infancy; therefore he speaks not of scripture taken alone, or without a Teacher, and so it can only be inferred, that scripture or the word written, joined with the unwritten word, is sufficient to instruct unto salvation. But besides this, of what scriptures doth S. Paul speak? Of those in which S. Timothy had been conversant from his infancy, which could be only the scriptures of the Old Testament, and therefore that which S. Paul delivered by word of mouth, must contain many more Points concerning Christian Religion, than Timothy could learn evidently, distinctly, and in particular by the Old Testament alone. Of that main Point, which one would think should be most clear, that Christ our Lord is the true Messiah, the Eunuch said▪ and how can I (understand) without an interpreter? Which yet he might have done, if scripture in that fundamental Point had been evident, according to the Axiom of the Socinians, he needs no guide who clearly and certainly knows the way. No doubt but the Old Testament may help to believe in Christ, being rightly interpreted; but it alone is not so evident as you pretend scripture to be. The star which appeared to the three Sages, had not been sufficient to call and direct them to Bethleem, without some other help; as that tradition, (*) Vid: S. Hieron: Lib: 1. Comment: in Cap: 2. March: S. Ambrost Lib: 〈…〉 2. There shall arise a star from Jacob (Num. 24.17.) And of Bethleem itself, 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 Captain to govern my People Israel) had not been clear without the declaration of the Clergy of that time; which declaration they also received by tradition. Whereby it appears, that when it is said; The scriptures can instruct thee unto salvation, this being spoken of the Old Testament only, can signify no more than that they may help to that effect, but not that they alone are sufficient, which is the thing you should prove. 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 etc. And therefore nothing can be gathered from this place to prove the sufficiency of scripture alone. Which appears also by those words which the Apostle adds; per Fidem etc. by Faith which is in Christ Jesus, declaring that the Old Testament may instruct to salvation, not taken alone, but with the help 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 upon this place) are committed to thee as a Bishop, to be conserved and promulgated: which interpretation he proves out of the Greek. And so it still appears more and more, even by this place of S. Paul, that more is to be believed, than is contained particularly in scripture; as also we learn out of the same Apostle, (2. Tessalon: 2.15.) Observe the Traditions which you have received from us, whether by word, or by Epistle: and (2. Tim. 1.13.14.) Have thou a form of Sound words, which thou hast heard from me in Faith, and in the love of Christ Jesus: (Mark, he saith, which thou hast heard from me, and not which have been written by me) keep the good depositum by the holy Ghost, which dwelleth in us; and (2. Timoth. 2.2.) The things which thou hast heard of me (mark again, hast heard, not haste red in my words) by many witnesses these commend to faithful men, which shallbe fit to teach others also. He taught, and would have others teach; and this perpetual course of Teaching, is the Catholic Tradition. 177. Object: 4. [Pag: 179. N. 80.] You ask, Why may not the Apostles writings be as fit means to conserve us in unity, and keep us from error, as the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Counsel of Trent, or the Pope that confirmed them? Or as the Decrees themselves? Surely their intent was to conserve unity of Faith, and to keep us from error. Was the Holy Ghost then unwilling, or unable to direct them so, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed 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 means, if we would use them as we should do, to preserve us in unity in all necessary Points of Faith, and to guard us from all pernicious Error. 178. Answer: As you are still begging the Question, so I may not fail to be putting you in mind, that you do so. You should prove, and not take as granted, that the intent of the Apostles was to conserve unity of Faith, and to keep us from error by their writings, taken alone, without any unwritten word, or Tradition. Our Question is, whether all necessary particular Points be evidently contained in Scripture alone: if they be not so contained; then it follows, that the scripture alone, can neither conserve us in unity, nor preserve us from error in those points of which it says nothing, but for such things, all will proceed, as if there were no scripture, therefore you must suppose all necessary things to be contained in scripture, before you can affirm, that the intent of the Apostles was to conserve unity, and to keep us from error, by their writings alone; that is, you must beg, that which you know is denied. The Holy Ghost was both able, and willing, so to direct the Apostles and all Canonical Writers, that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing, and certainly he did do so. But you have nor proved that they aimed at that end, which not the Holy Ghost, nor the Apostles moved by his inspiration, aimed at, but which you only presume to prescribe, for making good your error. You say; the scriptures may be very sufficient means if we would use them as we should do, to preserve us in unity, etc. But experience teaching, that by not following a Living Guide, no unity can be hoped for by scripture alone; to use them as we should do, is not for every one to follow his own interpretation, but that of God's Church. And it is an injury to the infinite wisdom of our B. Saviour, to imagine, that he left that, for a sufficient Means to conserve Unity, which hitherto neither hath had, nor ever will, nor ever can have that effect, without a perpetual, great, and unusual 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 Canonical writers were alive, the scripture, joined with such explication as they could give by word of mouth, or by writing new books, was sitter to conserve unity, than now it is: and, by not making use of such help of some authentical interpreter, it is said of the Epistles of S. Paul, (2. Pet. 3 V. 16.) that there were in them some hard things to be understood, which, unlearned and inconstant persons did deprave to their own perdition, as they did also other Scriptures. Now the Church supplies that want of the Apostles personal presence: And so we may say of all Controversyes in Faith, as S. Austin (de unit: Eccles: C. 22.) writes concerning the Question about Rebaptisation of such as were baptised by Heretics: we find not in Scripture, that some pass to the Church from heretics, 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 perform what he should say, lest we might feeme to gainsay, not him so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was recommended. Now Christ bears witness to his Church. And a little after: Whosoever refuses to follow the practice 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 means to conserve us in unity, and keep us from error, as the Decrees of the Church? The Answer is easy and clear. First, If one Decree be obscure, it may be declared by another, seeing the church can never perish. 2. If any new controversy in faith arise, the Church, always living and present, can determine it by some new Decree or Declaration. These conditions are wanting in scripture, which is always the same, and willbe no more clear, or of any larger extent for the contents thereof, to morrow, than it is to day; nor can ' it speak and declare itself by itself, but only can be declared by some living Judge or Interpreter. And you are in a great error, if you conceive that we hold any one Writing or Decree, to be sufficient for deciding all Controversyes; But we say, that the Church upon several exigents can declare her mind, 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 Counsels, &c: If we did yield to any one writing the sufficiency of ending all emergent Controversyes, God forbidden 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 book 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 Cham Ma: Part: 1. Chap: 2. N. 1.) we have direct Boyes-play, a thing given with one hand, and taken away with the other; an acknowledgement made in one line, and retracted in the next. We acknowledge (say you) Scripture to be a perfect rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule: Only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition. As if you should have said, we acknowledge it to be as perfect a Rule, as a writing can be; only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be. Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgement, or retract your retraction of it; for both cannot possibly stand together. For, if you will stand to what you have granted, That Scripture is as perfect a rule of Faith, as a writing can be: You must then grant it both so complete, that it needs 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 plain, that I am even ashamed to prove it. For he that denies it, must say, That something may be spoken which cannot be written. For if such a complete 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, than such a complete and evident rule of Faith may also be written. Answer me; Whether your Church can set down in writing all these, which she pretends to be Divine unwritten Traditions and add them to the verityes already written? And whether she can set us down such interpretations of all obscurityes in Faith, as shall need no farther interpretations? If she can; let her do it, and then we shall have a writing, not only capable of, but actually endowed with both these perfections, of being both so complete as to need no Addition, and so evident as to need no Interpretation. Lastly, no man can without Blasphemy deny that Christ jesus, if he had pleased, could have writ us a rule of Faith so plain and perfect, as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity, nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible, and then a writing there might have been endowed with both these propertyes. 181. Answer I have had the patience to set down your words much more at large, than was needful: the answer having been given already; that no one writing, can without a great and unusual miracle, be capable of being a perfect Rule of Faith; and your Arguments prove no such matter, as will appear anon. But first I must tell you, that you cite Cha: Ma: very disadvantagiously, or rather falsely, thus: We acknowledge scripture to be a perfect Rule, for as much as a writing can be a Rule, only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition; and here you stop; whereas He added; We only deny, that it excludes either divine Tradition, though it be unwritten, or an external judge to keep, to propose, to interpret it, in a true, Orthodox, and Catholic sense. Now, that no writing is able to propose, or prove itself to be authential or true, or to keep and conserve itself, Cham Ma: proved ibidem, (N. 3.4.5.6.) and the thing is of itself so true and evident, that (Pag: 61. N. 24.) to the words of Cha: Ma: (The scripture stands in need of some watchful and unerring eye, to guard it, by means of whose assured vigilancy, we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure) you answer; Very true: and (Pag: 69. N. 46.) to His saying (That the divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself alone, but by some extrinsecall authority) you answer expressly, that he n●ed not prove it, for no wise man denies it. And (Pag: 62. N. 25.) you confess, that we believe not the books of scripture to be Canonical, because they say so. For (say you) other books that are not Canonical may say they are, and those that are so, may say nothing of it. All which acknowledgements of yours, make good what Cha: Ma: said, that no writing alone can propose itself to be Authentical, and much less infallible, and divine, or can keep and preserve itself from corruption. Seeing then you grant, that no writing alone can perform these things, it follows, 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 have said, that if any writing alone were capable of these propertyes, to prove, conserve, and interpret itself, we would acknowledge scripture to be endued with them. 182. But here (Pag: 55. N. 8.) you make an Objection against Cham 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 give 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 give it the attestation of perpetual miracles. Secondly: That it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith; another, to be proved so unto us. And thus, though a writing could not be proved to us to be a perfect rule of Faith, by its own saying so, for nothing is proved true by being said or written in a book, but only, by Tradition, which is a thing credible of itself; yet it may be so in itself, and contain all the material Objects, all the particular Articles of our Faith, without any dependence upon Tradition; even this also not excepted, that this writing doth contain the Rule of Faith. Now when Protestants affirm 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 book called Scripture, is the word of God. For, he that will deny these Assertion; when they are speken, will believe them never a whitt the more because you can show them written: But their meaning is, that the Scripture, to them which presuppose it Divine, and a Rule of Faith, as Papists and Protestants do, contains all the material Objects of Faith; is a complete and total, and not only an imperfect and partial Rule. 183. I answer to your Objection, and to your Answer, that whereas you say to Cha: Ma: (you will say, that though a writing be never so perfect a Rule of Faith, yet it midst be beholding to Tradition to give 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 have said (you will say, that although a writing be never so perfect, &c:) For every one would have seen, that he had said it already: But you had reason to dissemble those words, which were both evidently true, and did clearly by way of anticipation confute what you say now, that a writing alone may have 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 conserve itself pure and incorrupt; which two qualities yourself grant that no writing can have, as hath been showed out of your own words; though now in your First Answer you either contradict them, and yourself, or else speak wholly impertinently to the purpose, in saying; there is no absolute necessity that a writing be beholding to Tradition, to give it this Testimony, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the word of God. For, God might, if he thought good, give it the attestation of perpetual Miracles. Good Sr., Reflect that the Question is, whether any writing alone can give to itself this testimony, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the word of God; and remember your own words which I cited above out of your (Pag: 69. N. 46.) that we need not prove that the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself alone, but by some extrinsecall authority; For no wise man denies it. You must therefore, unless you will contradict yourself, grant that no writing alone is sufficient for such an effect; and if God should do 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 seeing de facto God useth no such Miracles, as we did suppose as a thing evident by experience, and which yourself do 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 said or written in a Book, but only by Tradition, which is a thing credible in itself; Which according to you were not true if de facto God did give it the attestation of perpetual 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 give 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 God's Omnipotent Power in working Miracles, for excluding the necessity of Tradition and a Living Judge, you may ease men of all dispute about Scripture, or necessity thereof, seeing God can direct every man without Scripture by perpetual Miracles, and make all as infallible in their Thoughts, as the Apostles were in their words and writings, We ought therefore to speak of things as they are, and according to their natures, and the way which God hath set down; without recourse to a mere possibility of Miracles, against Experience teaching that He works not such imaginary wonders. Whereby I come now to prove, that it is not only impossible for any writing alone to propose, or prove, and conserve itself, but also to interpret its own meaning; because as Cha: Ma: saith, (Part: 1. Chap: 2. N. 3.) It must be, as all writings are, deaf, dumb, inanimate, and being always the same, cannot declare itself any one time, or upon any occasion more particularly than upon any other; and let it be red over an hundred times, it will be still the same, and no more fit alone to terminate Controversyes in Faith, than the Law would be to end suits, if it were given over to the fancy, and gloss of every single man. 184. And this which hath been said in general of any one writing, is in a particular manner to be affirmed of Holy Scripture, or of any writing containing Divine and sublime mysteries, which seem repugnant to natural Reason. For, the height of such truths moves the will, and persuades the understanding, to seek out any sense of words, though orherwise seeming clear, rather than to believe things seeming evidently contrary to Reason. Besides, seeing (as I alleged out of Doctor Taylour in his §. 3. N. 2.) words may be taken in a literal or spiritual sense, and both these senses are subdivided; For the literal sense is either natural or figurative: And the spiritual is sometimes allegorical, sometimes anagogical, nay, sometimes there are divers literal senses in the same sentence, as appears in divers quotations in the New Testament, where the Apostles and Divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes; , 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, literal, spiritual; natural, figurative; allegorical, anagogical; and that even of divers literal senses of the same Text, every person must see all; which if he do not, he may miss in one, though he chance to hit 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 understood in this, or that, sense? If you say, God might put a remedy to this diversity of meanings, by settling the indetermination or diversity of men's understandings, with perpetual Miracles, effectually keeping them all to the same judgement of all the same places, or subtracting his concourse to all contrary assents: I answer, this would be, a strange kind of proceeding, or Miracle; neither would it make any thing to your purpose, because, as I said, we speak of a writing taken alone, without Miracle, or Tradition. And seeing de facto God works no such Miracle, as we see by Experience in the disagreements of Christians concerning places of Scripture, which for the words seem very evident; it follows, 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 jesus, could have writ us a Rule of Faith so plain and perfect, as that it should have wanted neither any part to make up its integrity, nor any clearness to make it sufficiently intelligible. For I grant, that our Saviour could by Miracle have procured, that all men should frame the same Judgement of the same words; but deny that this could have happened infallibly, by means of any one writing alone, which is our present Question; and your having recourse to our Saviour's extraordinary Power, proves the very thing to be true which I affirm; that it cannot be done by any one writing alone. And when Charity Maintained said we acknowledge 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 discourse, and plain words, that he spoke of a writing alone, and considered according to the nature thereof, and in that course which God de facto holds, without dreaming of Metaphysical suppositions of your imagination; or of flying to such Miracles as God neither hath, nor (for aught we can with any shadow of reason imagine,) ever will work universally in the understandings of all men, to believe with certainty the particular dogmatic sense of words, for the understanding whereof, they have no certain universal Rule, either evidently seen by Reason, or certainly believeed by revelation. It is also evident, that when Cha: Ma: spoke the aforesaid words, of Scripture, He compared it not with all writings, which successively and without end, may interpret or declare one an other, but with any one writing taken alone, which, as I have proved, can not possibly propose, conserve, or interpret itself. For as Scripture, or the Bible, is one whole work or book, so it ought to be compared only with one other writing or book; as also He spoke of a writing, as it is contradistinguished from Tradition, or a perpetual Living Judg. But if you will be supposing a multiplication, or as it were successive addition of a latter writing to extend or declare the former, you are out of our case of a sole writing, and join a writing with a Living Writer and Judge, and so grant perforce the very thing which we affirm, 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 Judge: but seeing they are deceased, and no one writing is sufficient to interpret itself, we must have recourse to some present, always existent, and Living Judge, for determining Controversyes of Faith, and interpreting Holy Scripture. I believe, the unpartial Reader will Judge, that which you call Boyes-play, to have turned in good earnest to a greater disadvantage to yourself and your cause, than you imagined: And that your Arguments are of no force to prove, that any one writing can of itself be a perfect Rule of Faith. 185. We grant, that whatsoever is spoken, may be written, and affirm, that as no one writing, so no one speech, can be a complete Rule of Faith, but both the one and the other stand in need of some other speech, or writing to declare them, as occasion shall require: neither do we pretend that the Church can set down in any one writing all traditions, and Interpretations, or Declarations of all things belonging to Faith; but she can, and will, by several writings declare Doubts, as they shall occur necessary to be determined. You say: Neither is that an Interpretation, which needs again to be interpreted; as if a word or writing, or Interpretation, might not be clear for some part, and yet need a further Declaration in some other respect, or point, or purpose, or for such as did not fully understand the first Interpretation: And as you say; it is one thing to be a perfect Rule of Faith, another to be proved so unto us, so it is one thing to be a true, yea a full Interpretation in itself, another to appear so without addition of some other declaration; as also the first interpretation may give some light, yet to be further perfited by some subsequent exposition. None can deny, that the Canonical Writers of the New Testament, alleging some passages of the Old (and by alleging them to a certain purpose, they interpret and declare them to signify that for which they allege them) are not always so clear 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 sometime find difficulty, even in finding in the Old Testament, what is cited out of it; and we have heard out of a Protestant Doctor that The Apostles and divine Writers bring the same Testimony to divers purposes; which shows, that every interpretation doth not adequate the sense: yea since some Protestants, hold that the same Text of Scripture cannot admit several 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 have done, and will be forced to give some interpretation or declaration of those very different interpretations, which Canonical Writers gave of those Texts of the Old Testament. Thus your Arguments being clearly confuted, I must put you in mind of some Points on which I believe you did not reflect, and which will prove, that it is not Char: Main: but yourself who give 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 give a writing the attestation of perpetual Miracles, that it is a Rule of Faith, and the word of God. This you give here; and yet you take it away in your Answer to your Third Motive to be a Roman Catholic; where you say; the Bible hath been confirmed with those supernatural and divine Meracies, which were wrought by our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles; and add; It seems to me no strange thing, that God in his justice should permit sometrue Miracles to be wrought to delude them, who have forged so many, as apparently the professors of the Roman Doctrine have, 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 have been wrought to delude the Jews, who despised and impugned the Miracles of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, and denied Christ to be the true Messiah, 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 sins have not deserved such a punishment? Every deadly sin unrepented, will certainly be punished with eternal torments, which is the greatest evil that can be imagined, or rather so great, that it cannot be imagined by any mortal man; and therefore much more may every such sin be justly punished by permitting true Miracles to be wrought, to delude the sinner, if once that be granted which you affirm. How then could our Saviour say, (John 10.38.) If you will not believe me, believe the works? Or doth not this open a way to affirm, that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, have been wrought to delude men? And finally, to come close to our purpose, how could God give any certain 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 said Third Motive to be a Roman Catholic; The Bible de facto hath been confirmed with those Supernatural and Divine Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour Christ, and his Apostles? Is not this, with one hand to give Scripture the prerogative of being the word of God, and with the other to take it away? In the mean time; I challenge all the enemies of the Roman Church, to show any one Miracle-forged and approved by Her; and yourself know, that she censures with excommunication broachers of false Miracles, as Charity Maintained (Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 9) shows, and you in your Answer deny it not, it being notorious to the whole world, that such forgers are most severely punished in Catholic country's. 187. In another respect also, you give and take away. Here you tell us, that God might give scripture the Attestation of perpetual Miracles, that it is the word of God: and in your Answer to your third Motive as I said even now, you say, that the scripture hath been confirmed with those innumerous, supernatural, and Divine Miracles, which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles. If this be so, we must infer 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 material Objects of our Faith; so seeing you confess this Truth (The Bible is the word of God) to be proved by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles, it follows evidently, that it is a material Object of Faith, no less than the particular Truths which it contains. Andthis yourself affirm 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. Therefore, we are to believe, that Scripture is the word of God: and what is this but to be a material Object of our Faith? This, I say, you teach here. But in other places, you affirm and take care to prove, that Scripture is not one of the material Objects of our Faith, as shall appear in my next Chapter. 188. You do also overthrow what we have 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 lie and that the Eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the Confirmation of a falsehood, or of such Doctrine as is partly true and partly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was entirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. But how is this true, if the Apostles might have been permitted to work even true Miracles to delude men; or how is not their Doctrine uncertain, if you cannot be certain but that their Miracles were wrought to such an end of deluding men? How many ways are you fallen into that which you objected to your Adversary as direct Boyes-play? Giving, taking away; saying, unsaying, and in a word, 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 know not to what purpose you say in your second Answer, that it is one thing to be a perfect Ru●e of Faith, an other to be proved so unto us (seeing your adversary expressly spoke of scripture in order to us, affirming (Pag: 41. N. 6.) that it could not be proved unto us to be the word of God by its own saying so: which you also grant) unless it were to give a blow to Protestants, who calumniate us, as if we did subject the word of God, to the judgement of the Church, whereas we say no more, than here you acknowledge, that Scripture is in itself true, but not known or proved so to us, otherwise than only by Tradition, which, say you, is a thing credible of itself; against other Protestants, who hold the Church to be only the first external Motive, or inducement, and direction to believe scripture, (as Potter speaks, Pag: 193. and 141.) but not that for which we chief believe it, which they hold to be either the private Spirit, or the Majesty, or other signs found in scripture itself. 190. Object: 6. That all may understand in Scripture enough for their salvation, you endeavour to prove [Pag: 93. N. 105.] out of S. Austin, whose words you cite thus: Ea quae manifestè posita sunt in Sacris Scriptures, omnta continent quae pertinent ad Fidem, moresque vivendi. The place you cite not, which is your ordinary custom. I conceive, you mean de Doctrina Christiana (Lib: 2. Cap: 9) Where S. Austin speaking of the Books of Holy Scripture, saith; Illa quae in eyes 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. Austin, believed, we are obliged to believe more than can be clearly, and certainly, and particularly proved out of scripture taken alone, without the authority and Declaration of God's Church. Did he not believe, and most zealously defend the validity of Baptism conferred by Heretics, and taught it as a Point to be believed and practised by all? And yet (de unit: Eccles: Cap. 22.) he teacheth expressly, that we must in this Point rely upon the authority of the Church, as we have seen by his words. This Testimony of S. Austin was alleged 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 return to allege against us the words, of the same saint; in iis quae apertè posita sunt &c: which shows that I was not rash in saying, you could not but know, that S. Austin held, that more points are to be believed and practised, then can be proved out of scripture. Nay, your own Answers to this authority of S. Austin demonstrate, that you believed what I say about his judgement. For 192. You answer; First, you say to Catholics, In many things you will not be tried by S. Austin's judgement (this you prove by instances which are answered by an absolute denial that S. Austin is contrary to us in those points) and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to do so in this matter. 2. To S. Austin in heat of disputation against the Donatists, and ransacking all places for Arguments against them, we oppose S. Austin out of this heat, delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmly, and moderately; where he says, In ijs que apertè posita sunt etc. 193. Answer. It is strange, or rather ridiculous; I will not say, Boyes-play, (as you thought good to speak) that you should except against our allegation of S. Austin, because, say you, in many things we will not be tried by him, and that you in this very place allege S. Austin against us: you I say, who together with your fellow Socinians speak more contemptibly of that holy, learned, glorious Saint, than of any other Father. And no wonder, seeing you find that zealous Doctor to be most direct, clear, and efficacious for the Visibility, Splendour, Amplitude, Perpetuity, Succession, and Infallibility of God's Church, and unwritten Traditions, which is our present Question. This spirit you discover (Pag: 152. N. 44.) where you speak in this manner: To deal ingenuously with you and the world, I am not such an idolater of S. Austin, as to think a thing proved sufficiently, be cause he says it, nor that all his sentences are oracles; and particularly in this thing, that whatsoever was practised or held by the universal Church of his time, must needs have come from the Apostles. But good Sr. what play is this? To bring for an Argument and proof against us, a saying of S. Austin, and yet to profess not to think a thing proved sufficiently, because he says it? And, which is most strange, to bring for an Argument against us a place of S. Austin, to prove by his authority, the contrary of that which you acknowledge him to affirm, namely that (whatsoever was practised or held by the universal Church of his time, must needs come from the Apostles) as if with reason and equity, you may require us to believe S. Austin when you bring him against us, and yet yourself not believe him, when in the very self same matter, for which you allege him against us, yourself acknowledge him to stand for us, to wit, that whatsoever the universal 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 allege him, even here, that all necessary Points of Faith are set down in scripture alone. But of your little respect to B. Saint Austin, more may beseen through your whole Book 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. Austin's judgement, but wickedly tax his will and piety, as if he had overlashed out of heat or had been more excessively earnest in impugning heresies, than zealous in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity, as you speak: out of which Book you cite his words against us; or as if that can be called heat of disputation, which is delivered in writing, at leisure, upon mature study, and never rétracted. But, as I said, you cannot endure that B. Saint, because he is so great a defender of God's Church; and you could not have done a service more acceptable to the Devil, and pernicious to souls, than to give a ground for every one to despise S. Austin's Writings against the Donatists, as being but exaggerations, and effects of heat in disputation; whereas of all those holy, learned, and pious volumes of his, none can be of greater profit to God's Church, than those which he wrote against the Donatists, who were Schismatics from, and impugners of the same Church. It is well (though this also be wickedly done on your behalf) you confess that S. Austin did ransack all places for Arguments against the Donatists; and yet we see he finally rested upon the Church's authority, and not upon scripture; which directly proves for us, that after all diligence used, he comes to acknowledge 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 Catholic Church of far greater extent, and therefore of far greater credit and authority than the Roman Church. 196. Answer. This your Answer hath but two faults; Falsehood, and Impertinency. For S. Austin speaks of the visible universal Church; And that there was no true Church, which did not agree with the Roman, and the Roman with it in S. Augustine's time, Protestants themselves do grant, while they commonly give to the purity of the Roman Church, a larger extent of years than from the Apostles to S. Austin. And, for consequent ages, till Luther's time, either you must say Christ had no true universal Church upon earth, or else that it was the Roman, and such as agreed with her. Your Answer is also no less impertinent, then untrue. 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 general, whether the true Church ought to be believed in delivering 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 speaks of a Point not expressed, but yet not contradicted by scripture, whereas the errors we charge you with, are contradicted by scripture. 198. Answer. First: I am very glad to hear you confess again, that S. Austin speaks of a Point not expressed in scripture: and yet it is a Point believed, not only by S. Austin, but also by divers learned Protesrants, (as in particular, by urban. Regius, Hoffmanus, Sarcerius, Confessio Augustrana, and Bilson, who are exactly cited by Bierly Tr: 3. sect 7. under M. at 13.) that baptism is necessary for the salvation of Children; and consequently it were a pernicious error to hold, that baptism conferred by Heretics, is valid, if indeed that Doctrine be not absolutely certain, since it were to hazard the salvation of infants and others; besides that S. Austin confesses, that the baptising of Children is not grounded upon scripture, and yet he believes it as a certain and necessary doctrine. Secondly: it is impertinent whether the errors you charge us with, be contradicted by scripture; seeing our present question is only whether some truth was believed by S. Austin, (yea and is also believed by Protestants, who are not wont to rebaptize the children of Catholics, or of different Sects amongst themselves) which is not expressed in scripture. It being also very untrue, that any doctrine of ours is contradicted by scripture, this your Answer comes, as the former, to be adorned with the two excellent qualities I mentioned, of falsehood, and Impertinency. 199. Your fift Answer saith: He (S. Austin) says not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an infallible definer of all emergent Controversyes, but for a credible witness of Ancient Tradition. Whosoever therefore refuses to follow the practice of the Church (understand, of all places, and ages) though he be thought to resist our Saviour, what is that to us, who cast of no practices of the Church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the ●yme of the Apostles, and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times. 200. Answer. S. Austin saith not only that Ahrist hath recommended the Church as a witness of Tradition, or matter of Fact, but also what de jure aught to be done, about rebaptising of such as were baptised by Heretics; and therefore saith expressly: 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 perform what he should say, lest we might seem to gainsay not so much him, as Christ, by whose Testimony he was recommended. Now Christ beareth witness to his Church. Behold S. Austin speaks of the Question, or Doctrine itself, and not only of examples, or what was practised by the Church, and therefore saith, we should not doubt to perform even for time to come, what a wise man, of whom our Saviour had given Testimony, should advise, and not only to believe him, that such a thing was, or was not, practised before. Now S. Austin saith that Christ bears witness to the Church, as upon supposition he had done to some wise man; therefore we are to believe the Church as we would believe such a man so recommended, whom certainly we ought to believe both for matter of Fact, and Faith, or Doctrine. Beside, if S. Austin did allege the Church only as a witness of Tradition, his Argument were of no force to establish a Point of Faith, unless he did suppose the Church could not err in delivering what hath been a perpetual Tradition, and that the Point delivered by such a Tradition, must be true, and consequently that the Doctrine delivered by the universal Church cannot be false. It had been a strange Argument to say; it is credible, but not certain, that the Church hath always delivered as a perpetual practice, or tradition, that persons baptised by Heretics are not to be rebaptised; But the church may err in that which is certain she does practise: therefore it is certain that persons baptised by Heretics may not be rebaptised. 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 unlawful what nearer are we by knowing the practice of the Church for our direction in order to the embracing, or avoiding such a pactise? And therefore S. Austin proposing the practice of the Church, as a Rule and direction, what we are to follow, supposes the Church cannot err in the Doctrine on which such a practice depends; as all practice depends upon some dictamen of the understanding. The same is evident by other say of S. Austin, 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 do 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 could the disputing against any practice of the universal Church, be censured so deeply, if the Church may err in her practices; especially when the Question is, whether such a thing be to be believed as a Point of Faith, which must rely upon certainty? And we are to observe, that S. Austin speaks of what ought to be done, and not only of matter of Fact; which is clear by his words, Quod horum sit faciendum, Which of those things ought be done; as also because he speaks upon a supposition if the scripture did prescribe something; and you will not deny, but in that case we were obliged to believe, not only that it was, or was not practised, but also that the thing in itself was lawful: and then he saith, that beside scripture, we ought to embrace, and not to dispute against the universal practice of the church. The same Holy Father teaches, that the custom of baptising children, cannot be proved by scriptute alone, and yet that it is to be believed, as derived from the Apostles. The custom of our Mother the Church (saith he Lib: 10. de Gen: ad Lit: Cap: 23.) in baptising infants is in no wise to be contemned, nor to be accounted superfluous, nor is it at all to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical Tradition. 201. Ponder first, how the baptising of infants is not to be contemned, or accounted a vain or unprofitable thing, and not only that we are to believe there is such a practice. 2. That seeing what the Church practices, is to be believed, and yet that it were not at all to be bebelieved unless it were an Apostolical tradition; it follows, that what the universal Church practices is an Apostolical Tradition, and consequently certain and infallible, though it be not written in scripture. And (Serm: 14. de Verbis Apostoli. Chap 18.) speaking of the same Point of baptising children, he saith, This the Authority of our Mother the Church hath; against this strength, against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth, shall be crushed in pieces. Which place is so clear for us, that the Protestants in the Conference at Ratisbone could give 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 red it in Charity Maintained, and seek to answer this very place of S Austin alleged by Him. And of the Quesstion of not rebaptising &c: (Lib. 1. Cont: Crescon. Cap. 32. & 33.) He saith, we follow indeed in this matter, even the most certain authority of canonical scriptures. But how? Doth he mean, that the Question is in particular evidently delivered in scripture? In no wise. How then? Hear his words: Although verily there be brought no example for this Point out of the Canonical scriptures, yet even in this Point, the truth of the same scripture is held by us, while we do that, which the authority of scriptures doth recommend; that so, because the Holy scripture cannot deceive us, whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the obscurity of this Question, must have recourse to the same church concerning it, which without any ambiguity the holy scripture doth demonstrate to us. Consider, that we are said to follow scripture, while we follow the church, even in a thing not expressed in scripture; and that he speaks not only of examples not found in scripture, but of that Question, Doctrine, and truth itself; affirming that the truth of scripture is held, while we follow the church; and that because the scripture cannot deceive us, the way not to be deceyved, is to have recourse to that church which the same scripture recommends: which certainly were no good advice, or direction, if the church might be deceived: neither could S. Austin refer us to the church in stead of the scripture, or as if the Question were defined by the scripture itself, unless the church be infallible as scripture is. And, (de Baptismo cont. Donat. Lib 5. C. 23.) he hath these remarkable words: The Apostles indeed have prescribed nothing of this (about not rebaptising &c:) but this custom ought to be believed to be originally taken from their Tradition, as are many things which the universal church observeth, which are therefore with good reason believed to have been commanded by the Apostles, although they be not written. Can any thing have been spoken more clearly, to show that the universal 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 universally (Lib. 7. de Baptismo Cap. 53.) It is safe for us to avouch with confident and secure words, that which in the Government of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is strengthened by the consent of the universal church. 202. By what we have said in confutation of this your fift answer, the Reader will of himself see the weakness of your chief answers (Pag. 151. N. 42.43.44.) to these and other places alleged out of S. Austin by Charity Maintained (Part 1. Chap. 3. N. 16.) as also out of S. chrysostom, who treating (these words (2. Thess. 2.) Stand and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by speech, or by our epistle) saith; (Homil. 4.) Hence it is manifest, that they delivered delivered not all things by letter, but many things also without writing, and these also are worthy of belief. Let us therefore account the Tradition of the church worthy of belief. It is a Tradition, seek no more. Which words are so plain against Protestants, that Whitaker (de sacra scrip. Pag 678.) is as plain with S. Chrisostome, and says; I Answer, that this is an inconsiderate speech, unworthy so great a Father: These words of Whitaker were alleged in the same place by Charity Maintained, but are dissembled by you, who (Pag. 153. N. 45.46.) give two slight answers to the said words of S. Chrisostome: the first is like to that which in the first place you gave to the words of S. Austin; that I was to prove the Church infallible, not in her Traditions, but in all her decrees and difinitions of Controversyes: Which answer I have confuted already; and it is directly contrary to S. Chrisostome, who not only saith, that we are to believe the church affirming such, or such a thing to have been delivered, but also, that the things so delivered are worthy of belief, as he said of things delivered by the Apostles without Writing, and to be believed in such manner, as we are to seek no more. Therefore we are to rely on the church's Tradition, as upon a sure and certain 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. chrysostom, as if he spoke of a Chimaera, and not of any thing of use, or existent, and applicable to practise, and in stead of saying as he doth: It is a Tradition, seek no more, it is worthy of belief. He should have said, There is no such thing as Tradition, seek it not, nor believe it. Besides, in this very conditional grant, that we were to believe Tradition of the Church, and the things which she delivers as true, you grant the Church to be endued with infallibility, as I may say, habitually; otherwise we could not believe 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 been done, but also of what ought to be done, that is of Fact and Faith, of Practice and Speculation; we have as much as we desire, to wit, that the Church cannot err in her Traditions, or in defining what hath been delivered by the Apostles. And in this, Whitaker by rejecting S. chrysostom, whom he could not otherwise answer, shows more sincerity than you do. 204. last: Whereas you say, there are no universal Traditions of the Church for matters of Doctrine, we have demonstrated above, that there are many; as for example, those which concern the Governors and Government of the church; Form and matter of Sacraments, and other Points of which I spoke heretofore, even out of Dr. Field and other Protestant learned Writers. And indeed seeing S. Chryfostome saith, as we have seen, that the Apostles delivered many things without writing, who will believe 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 have demonstrated that the very Articles of our Creed, are not clear without the Declaration of the church, and it appears in the experience we have before our eyes in the contentions of Protestants, concerning those principal Articles of the Creed. 205. But now let us return to answer your assertion out of S. Austin, which in effect is done to our hands by Dr. Field, who, (Lib: 4. Cap: 20.) summoneth divers Traditions not contained in scripture, as the chief heads of Christian Doctrine, and distinct explication of many things, somewhat obscurly contained in Scripture. Yea Dr. Potter, though he hold all Fundamental Points of Faith to be contained in the Creed, yet (Pag: 216.) he puts this restriction, that it must be taken in a Catholic sense, that is, as it was further opened and explained in some parts (by occasion of emergent heresies) in the other Catholic Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Athanasius. Now as heresies may still arise, so still there will be necessity of a new opening, or explanation: and what would such explications avail us in order to an Act of Faith, if the whole church may err? And therefore when S. Austin is alleged to say, that all necessary Points are manifest in scripture, he cannot be understood of scripture alone without explication, or declaration of the church, even for Fundamental Points, (and consequently necessary to salvation) contained in the Creed. This answer you might have gathered out of S. Austin's words, if you had cited them aright, as I have done above. Illa quae &c: Those things which are set down plainly in them (Books of Holy Scripture) whether they be precepts of good life. or Rules of Faith are to be sought out with more industry and diligence, of which, every one fynds out the more, by how much he is of a greater understanding. For, in those things which are plainly set down in scripture, all those things are found which contain Faith and manners. Do not these words signify, that one must use great diligence to seek out the meaning of scripture, and that some of greater ability, even in things belonging to Faith, find out more than others? which argues that every one fynds not out all points of belief and life; for which therefore an authentical interpreter, or Tradition is necessary. If it had not been for tradition, how would so many of our modern sectaries have 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 mean time I must not omit to say, that in this First answer, with falsehood you join impertinency, to divert the Reader from the state of the Question, in saying; Whosoever refuses to follow the practice of the Church (understand, of all places and ages) though he be thought to resist our Saviour, what is that to us, who cast of no practices of the Church, but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles, and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times, for our Question is not (for the present) Whether you deny any universal practice or Doctrine of God's church, but in general, whether the traditions of the church be not to be followed and believed, whether they concern Doctrine or practice, and consequently whether scripture alone contain all Objects of Faith: and it seems by this your answer, that you do not deny the certainty of the churches universal 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 therefore the church may err; is a mere untruth; and it is strange that you should so intolerably often allege this Point, and yet never so much as once offer to prove it; and to allege it as the doctrine of S. Austin, without bringing one single Text out of him to make it good: whereas you cannot be ignorant, that Catholic divines allege all that can be said out of S. Austin concerning this subject, and solidly demonstrate, that the actual receyving Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, was never held by that holy Father to be necessary for infants: and you presume too much if you think us obliged to believe you against greater and better 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. Austin, (Epist. 118.) If the church through the whole world practise any of these things; to dispute whether that aught to be so done, is a most insolent madness: That it is a fallacy A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter, because S. Austin speaks only of matters of order and decency, and from hence I infer, if the whole Church practise any thing, to dispute whether that aught 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. Austin, These things, not any thing: 2. If S. Austin did not suppose that the Catholic church cannot err, he could not say, that it were a most insolent madness to dispute against that which she practices. For, one might doubt, whether that which she practices, did not contain some error against Faith, or deviation from manners; or whether that which you call order and decency, or circumstance, may not contain 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 time when we are wont to sup, as Protestants commonly call it the supper; which certainly you cannot avoid by scripture alone, but only by authority of the Church, which practiseth the contrary. And this is so great a doubt, that Januarius consulted S. Austin about it; and S. Austin answers, that we are to follow the custom of Churches: though yet in the same Epistle, (Cap. 7.) he saith: Nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio etc. Some were moved with a probable reason, that upon one particular day in the year, on which our Lord gave the supper, the Body and Blood of our Lord, might be offered and receyved after meat as it were for a more remarkable commemoration. The same I say of washing the feet, and other circumstances, which, abstracting from the practice of the Church, you can have no certainty, but that we are obliged to follow our Saviour's 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 have no part with me; And (V 14.) you also aught to wash one another's feet. Mark the word ought, which may seem to sound a command, and was spoken not only to S. Peter, but to all the rest. Therefore unless we rely on the church's practice, Declaration, and infallibility, we must say that there is a command to wash feet, either before we receyve the Eucharist, or else absolutely without relation to that Sacrament, because our Saviour said absolutely, you ought to wash one an others feet. Morover; How will you assure us, that bread for the Matter of Consecration, must not of necessity be unleavened; and the wine only of that kind which our Saviour used at that time? Or if you may consecrated 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 them were damnable: therefore S. Austin must suppose that the universal church cannot err. Neither can he be thought to say: these things are not unlawful, but indifferent, therefore it is madness to dispute against them, if they be practised by the whole church; but contrarily he must say, the whole church practices them; therefore they are lawful, and it is madness to dispute against them; which were not so, if the whole church might err: neither had he said any more of the universal 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 esteemend pride and folly, to contradict and disturb the Church for matter of order, pertaining to the time and place and other circomstances of God's worship: And yet S. Austin in that Epistle, (Cap. 2.) having first mentioned things contained 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 understood to be kept as recommended and ordained either by the Apostles themselves, or by general Counsels, whose authority is most wholesome in the Church: and having given examples of things which are differently observed in different places and countries, saith: this kind of things is freely observed: neither is there any better order for a grave and prudent Christian, then that he do as he sees done in that church to which he chances to come: and afterward he disallows 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 universal church. Therefore according to S. Austin, if once we have a tradition of the universal church, we may and aught to defend it without further dispute, and to impugn and reject whatsoever practice, or doctrine of any particular church, or country, though it may seem to be occasion of trouble; which we could not do without pride and folly, unless we were assured that the universal church cannot approve any unlawful practice, or deliver any thing against faith: and therefore he saith Cap. 4. that he who alleges only the custom of his particular country, will not speak out of scripture, neither will he take his proofs from the voice of the universal church dilated through the world: Where we see S. Austin makes a difference between a particular and universal church, and constantly joins together the Holy Scripture, and the voice of the universal church, either of which whosoever can allege, 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 contained in scripture, or be unanimously practised by the whole church, or of the third kind which is different in divers places and countries; of which third kind he saith, let every one do what he finds in that church where he fynds himself. But of the two first kinds he speaks, as I noted above, in another manner, that there is no doubt but that we are to do what the Holy Scripture prescribes, as also whatsoever the universal church doth practise, and that to dispute against any such thing, is most insolent madness. What could have been spoken more clear? to show that we are not to follow the universal church, because we judge aforehand that what she practices, is lawful, but because we learn by her practice, that it is lawful, and so ought not to doubt quin ita faciendum sit, that is aught to be so done; and so we must learn of her both the practice, and the lawfulness thereof: And consequently whatsoever is against scripture, or the practice of the universal Church, must not be ranked among the third kind of things, of which he said, none of those things are against Faith or Manners; and contrarily, whatsoever is of the two first kinds, that is, against scripture, or the universal Church, must be esteemed to be of a different nature, and contrary to Faith or Manners; and therefore, saith he, velemendari opportet quod perperam fiebat, vel institui quod non fiebat. Either that must be mended which was done amiss, or that is to be ordained which was omitted. And therefore your saying here, that it is not to be accounted pride or folly, to go about to reform some errors which the Church hath suffered to come in, and to vitiate thereby the substance of God's Worship; is directly against S Austin: and you cannot avoid the crime of schism, by parting from the Church upon such false pretences; nor of Heresy, even by this most pernicious Doctrine, that the universal Church may err. 210. From these places of S. Austin, and what we have said in this whole chapter, it is easy to answer a kind of Objection which you make (Pag 134. N. 13.) against those words of Charity Maintained (Part. 1. Ch. 3. N. 19) I deliver a catalogue, wherein are comprised all Points y us taught to be necessary to salvation, in these words: We are obliged under pain of damnation, to believe whatsoever the Catholic visible church of Christ proposeth as revealed by God. Against this you say, that in reason Charity Maintained might think it enough for Protestants also to say in general, that it is sufficient for any man's salvation; to believe, that the scripture is true and contains all things necessary for salvation; and to do his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it, without delivering any particular catalogue of the fundamentals of Faith. 211. This Objection, I say is easily answered out of the grounds we have laid and proved. For, First, we deny that scripture contains all things necessary for salvation; and so one might believe all the contents thereof, and yet want the belief of some necessary Points. But whosoever believes scripture, with the Traditions and Definitions of God's Church, is sure to believe all; and so hath a sufficient catalogue of all. 2. Whosoever believes the church, hath an evident and certain Means to know the true Meaning of scripture, in all necessary Points: Not so, they, who believe only scripture which needs an infallible Interpreter. 3. We are sure, that the church which is assisted by the holy Ghost, will not fail to propose in all occasions every particular Object of Faith, as necessity shall require: Which, as I have often said, scripture cannot do, taken alone. And therefore our chiefest care must be, to believe the true church, which we know will propose, in due time, all necessary Points of Faith, whether or no we know what Points in particular are fundamental: and so this belief of the church, brings with it the explicit belief of all necessary Objects, as need shall be: But you cannot tell whether you believe all fundamental Points, unless first you know what Points in particular be such, and therefore Protestants hitherto have endeavoured to assign a particular Catalogue of them: and after all, you come to tell us, that it is impossible to make any such Catalogue. 212. But enough of this Objection, and whole Question, wherein much more might have been said, out of scripture, Fathers, and Reason; which may be seen at large in Catholic Writers. My purpose was to answer Mr. Chillingworths' Arguments; and yet some will think I have been to long; to whose judgement I would subscribe as soon as any other, if I had not found, that perpetually he gives so many advantages, as I must either have been long, or wholly dissembled them; and by occasion given by him, some things not unprofitable in themselves, have been declared. 213. And even now, I must not omit to add a new Argument to all my former: and it is this; that although it were granted, that scripture alone did contain evidently and expressly, all particular Truths, that we are bound to believe, yet this were not enough for Protestants, if they will believe this man's doctrine, which is such, as overthrows the authority of scripture itself; and therefore they must either renounce his Assertions, or else be content to alter their pretended most common ground, that scripture alone contains evidently, and in particular, all Points of Faith; and so return to believe the authority, and infallibility of God's 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 settled upon 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 show out of this man's particular Tenets, that if his doctrine were true, scripture cannot be any Rule at all, and much less a perfect Rule for matters of Faith. This I will endeavour to peforme in the next Chapter. CHAP: III. A CONFUTATION OF MR. CHILLINGWORTHS' ERRORS AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE. IT is a singular Providence of God, to permit you, who pretend that Scripture is a total, and not only a partial Rule of Faith, as you speak [Pag 55. N. 8.] to publish so gross errors against the Authority thereof, that if they were true, it could not be so much as any Rule at all, much less a total and perfect Rule of Faith. 2. First then, you teach and endeavour to prove, that Scripture is none of the material Objects of Faith, but only the means of conveying them unto us, as you expressly say (Pag: 65. N. 32.) And yet in this you are still like yourself, so confused, that you may be alleged 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 contained in Scripture. That is, all the material Objects of our Faith; whereof the Scripture is none, but only the means of conveying them unto us: Which we believe not finally, and for itself, but for the matter contained in it. So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture, it should no way hinder their salvation, not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of, were in this case, and yet no doubt but they might be saved. The end that God aims at, is the belief of the Gospel, the Covenant between God and man; the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end, and this also we are to believe, but not as the last Object of our Faith, but as the instrument of it. When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Article (of the 39 of the English Protestant Church) you must understand, that by Articles of Faith, they mean, the final and ultimate Objects of it, and not the means and instrumental Objects. 3. what confusion and obscurity is here? First, scripture is none of the material objects of our Faith, but only the means of the conveying them to us. Which words put an antithesis between the material objects of our Faith, and the means of conveying them to us, that is scripture. Then; which (Scripture) we believe not finally, and for itself, but for the matter contained in it; or as you say afterward; this (Scripture) also we are to believe, but not as the last object of our Faith, but as the instrument of it. Which words seem to signify, that we are to believe scripture (though not finally, and for itself) and consequently that it is a material object of our Faith. For, what is a material object of Faith, except that which is believed by Faith? And then how is scripture none of the material objects of Faith, if it be one that is believed, though not for itself? If a thing cannot be said, to be a material object of Faith, unless we believe it finally and for itself, divers verityes contained in scripture, shall not be material objects of our Faith; and in particular, all those of which S. John speaks (Cap 20. V 30.31.) Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book; And these are written, that you may believe, that Jesus is Christ the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. Those Miracles than were written not for themselves, but as a means to attain the knowledge 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 have life in his name. And (1. Pet. 1.9.) we read more universally, that the end of our Faith, is the salvation of our souls. 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 Books 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 believe in Christ, but of necessity he must do so? Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ, but he must have the same to believe the scripture. 4. Sir: Are you a Christian of any profession? If you be, than it must be manifest to all the world, that you must agree with others in the belief of scripture. Therefore scripture, is one part or Object of your belief; and this as you profess, under pain of damnation, and consequently it is not only an object, but a necessary object to be believed: and you cannot without hypocrisy pretend to believe in Christ, but of necessity you must do so (that is, believe scripture) seeing you can have no reason to in Christ, but you must have the same to believe the Scripture. If then you teach, as you do, that one is not bound to believe Scripture, but may reject it, you must grant, that by the same reason he may not believe, yea, may reject Christ himself. And now hear what you say; (Pag: 116. N. 159.) If a man should believe Chistian Religion wholly and entirely, and live according to it, such a man, though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, no nor to be the word of God, my opinion is, he may be saved; and my reason is, because he performs the entire condition of the new Covenant, which is, that we believe the matter of the Gospel, and not that it is contained in these or these Books. So that the Books of Scripture are not so much the Objects of our Faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding; and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine, as requisite to the well being of it. Irenaeus tells us of some barbarous Nations; that believed the Doctrine of Christ, and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God, for they never heard of it, and Faith comes by hearing: But these barbarous people might be saved: Therefore men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God; much more without believing it to be a Rule, and a perfect Rule of Faith. Neither doubt I but if the Books of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church, where they had been before receyved, and had been doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous Nations, but still by the bare belief and practice of Christianity, they might be saved: God requiring of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verityes therein contained, and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherein they are contained. In some of these words, you may perhaps seem to speak ambiguously, That the Scriptures are not so much the Objects of our Faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our understing. For, (not so much) seems to signify, that they are the objects of our Faith in some degree: but this very mincing of things, shows the absurdity of that wherein you are afraid to declare your mind plainly, or if you believe as your words seem most to signify, we must say, that you hold scripture not to be a material Object of our Faith which must consist in indivisibili. For, if this truth (scripture is the word of God) be revealed, it is no less absolutely and rigorously a material object of Faith, than the verityes contained 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 been proposed to those barbarous people, by the other parts of the church, where they had been before receyved, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by them, but still by bet bare belief and practice of Christanity they might be saved) do either directly signify, that scripture is absolutely no material Object of our faith, nor a thing revealed by God; or else contain a most wicked doctrine, or rather blasphemy, that a truth revealed by God, may be rejected, which you confess, is to give God the . And that finally this is your opinion (scripture is not a material object of Faith) appears by your next N. 160 Pag. 117.) Where you say; This discourse whether it be rational and concluding or not, I submit to better judgement▪ For you speak of the discourse which I have now set down out of your (N. 159.) Neither can you avoid 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 been before receyved: As also you expressly put a difference between the verityes contained in scripture and scripture which contains them, saying; God requires of us underpayne of damnation, only to believe the verityes therein contained, and not the divine Authority of the books wherein they are contained; and yet it is a thing granted by all, and evident of itself, that none can be obliged to believe the verityes contained in scripture, or any other verityes, unless they be sufficiently proposed: and therefore if you will make good, the difference you put between scripture and the contents thereof, and not contradict yourself, you must confess, that one is not obliged to believe scripture or the divine Authority thereof, but may reject it, although it be sufficiently proposed: yea it will also follow, that the contents thereof may be rejected, the first, and last, and total knowledge whereof Protestants pretend to receive only from the written word. For, they cannot possibly conceive any obligation to believe the contents of scripture, if first they be persuaded, that they have no obligation to believe scripture itself, 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 hereafter. 5. For the present, I must observe some things delivered by you in the places which I have cited. First, (Pag. 66. N. 33.) where you teach, that scripture is an instrumental Object of our Faith: which is a strange kind of speech. Philosophers tell us of a material, and formal Object, of a total, and Partial, of an Adequate, and Inadequate, and some other Divisions of Objects; but of an instrumental Object I never heard. Nothing can be styled an Object of any act of our understanding, unless it be apprehended by that act; and nothing consequently can be called the Object of an Act of Faith, unless 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 material Object of Faith, and so your phrase of an instrumental Object, serves only to confute your own doctrine, and prove that scripture is a material Object of Faith. Besides, who ever dreamt, that either the divine Revelation, which is the formal Object of Faith, or the things revealed, which are the Material Objects thereof, can be called according to Philosophy, the Instruments of an act of Faith? Or who ever heard that an Instrument is divided into a Formal and Material 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 have these just exceptions: That they are against yourself, who expressly teach that the Apostles declared divers things to the Church of their time, which declarations are not extant: as also that they are against this doctrine of yours, that scripture is not a material object of Faith. For I ask, whether, or no, the Apostles taught the Churches, that the Books or Epistles, or Prophecies, written by Canonical Authors, were the word of God? If they did; then the divine authority of scripture is a material object of our Faith, as being a thing taught by the Apostles with divine infallible assistance: which is the reason why we believe, that other mysteries 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 believe it to be the word of God? Yourself, speaking of the Canonicalness 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 above, 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 Books 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 us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verityes therein contained, and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherein they are contained? Will you make us believe, that not to be damnable, which yourself acknowledge Christians of all Professions to agree with one consent to have been damnable, namely, not to believe all those Books which were not doubted of in the ancient Church? Or how are not those books an Object of our Faith, and belief, in the Belief whereof, 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 time, can without hypocrisy, pretend to believe in Christ, but of necessity he must do so? That is he must believe all those Books of Scripture, which were not doubted of in the Church, seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ, but he must have the same to believe the scripture. And Pag. 116. N. 159.) you say; It were now very strange and unreasonable, if a man should believe the matter of the Books, (of Scripture) and not the Authority of the Books: and therefore if a man should profess the not believing of these, I should have reason to fear he did not believe that: How, I say, can you write in this manner, who teach, that scripture is not a material object of faith, which we are bound to believe under pain of damnation, and yet that we are bound to believe the verityes contained therein, of which, Christ is one? Is there the same reason to believe a thing revealed, and another acknowledged not to be revealed? I hope your meaning is not that it is reasonable, not to believe the authority of scripture, and yet that it is reasonable, for the authority thereof to believe the matter of it: which were not only unreasonable, but impossible also; as no man can possibly assent to a Conclusion in virtue of Premises which he believes not to be true. 8. But in this last place (Pag: 116. N. 159.) you have a subtlety expressed in these words: There is not always an equal necessity of the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal reason. We have I believe, as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eigh● King of England, as that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate: yet this is necessary to be believed, and that is not so. So that if any man should doubt or disbelieve that, it were most unreasonably done of him, yet it were no mortal sin, nor no s●●ne at all: God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which Reason induceth them to believe. Therefore as an Executor, that should perform the will of the dead, should fully satisfy the law, though he did not believo that parchment to be his Written will, which indeed is so: so I believe, that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity, and lives according, to them, should be saved, though he neither believed, nor knew that the Gospel were written by the Evangelists, or the Epistles by the Apostles. This is your discourse; which deserves detestation rather than confutation. Yet I must not omit to make some reflections on it. 9 First then: whereas you say, There is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal reason: I answer, that you speak very confusedly, and imperfectly; and either untruly, if your words be so understood, as they may make any thing to our present Question: or impertinently, if they belong nothing to it. I say therefore: if the belief of one thing, be necessary for the belief of another, which I am bound to believe, the belief of both is necessary: the one, for itself, the other for that other, which is supposed to be necessary of itself, as you say the belief of scripture is only for the belief of the contents. Secondly; if the reason for which I believe a thing, be not only true, but also by the nature thereof necessarily obliges me to believe that thing which it proves; in that event, whersoever I find that reason, I shall remain obliged to believe that Object which it proves. This is our case. For, no Christian, yea no man endued with reason, can deny, but that if I believe an Object, as testified by God, I am obliged to believe all other Truths so testified. Now I pray you tell us the reason for which at this time you hold yourself obliged to believe 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 ask, for what reason do you believe Scripture to be the word of God? If you answer, because God hath testified it to be such, by those Miracles which the Apostles wrought to prove their words and writings to be infallible and inspired by the Holy Ghost: then I infer, that as you are bound to believe the contents of Scripture, so you are also obliged to believe Scripture itself; seeing you have the same reason to believe that God hath testified both the Scripture, and the contents thereof. If you believe Scripture to be the word of God, not for the Divine Testimony, for which you believe the contents, but for some other Reason; then your saying (There is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal Reason) was impertinent, because for the belief of Scripture there is not the same reason for which you believe the verityes therein contained and your other saying (Pag. 218. N. 49) must be false (that no man at this time can have reason to believe in Christ, but he must have the same to believe the Scripture,) if it be true that you believe not scripture for the same reason for which you believe Christ, and other mysteries contained in it. But let us know indeed, for what reason you believe Scripture to be the word of God. It seems, one may answer for you out of your Answer to your Third Motive, where you teach, that the Bible hath been confirmed with those supernatural 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 believe that which universal neverfailing Tradition assures me, that it was by the admirable supernatural work of God, confirmed to be the word of God. If this be true; how are not men obliged to believe that which hath been so confirmed? Or for what other reason do you believe the Truths contained in Scripture; as our Saviour; His Incarnation; Life; Death; Resurrection, and other mysteries of Christian Faith, but because they were confirmed by the admirable supernatural works of God, whereby you expressly grant Scripture to have been confirmed to be the word of God? You must therefore either grant, that there is a necessity to believe Scripture to be the word of God, or deny that there is a necessity to believe the contents thereof. And then further, for our present Question; you must either grant, that Scripture is a material Object of Faith, or deny that the verityes therein contained, are such an Object; unless you will confess yourself to be a very strange and unreasonable man, to believe the matter of the books, (of Scripture) and not the Authority of the books; and therefore since you profess not to be obliged to believe, these, may not one have reason (to use your own words) to fear, that you do not think yourself obliged to believe, that? Nay, is it not apparent (still I use your own words) that you at this time cannot without hypocrisy, pretend an obligation to believe in Christ, but of necessity you must acknowledge an obligation to believe the Books of scripture; seeing you can have no reason to think you are obliged to believe in Christ, but must have the same to believe the scripture: and if your belief of the contents of scripture, or of obligation to believe them, be unreasonable, 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 believe them, namely, the divine Testimony: which Point if you observe, you cannot but see, how impertinent your example was about believing there was such a man as King Henry, (which you say, one is not bound to believe) and that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, which is a Truth set down in a writing confirmed by Miracles to be the word of God, and consequently to deny the mysteries contained in that book, were to reject a thing confessed to be witnessed by God. And is not a man obliged to believe whatsoever he knows to be witnessed by God? I said, your example is impertinent; but I must add, that it is also false, , and blasphemous, to say, as you do, We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight, King of England, as that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. Have you as great reason to believe the Chronicles of England, and the Testimony of men, as to believe the word of God? 10. Morover though it import nothing to our present Question, whether or no you speak true, in saying; there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal 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 conceive the same reason for both, if I believe the one I may believe the other; nay, I have a necessity to believe it, so far, as I cannot believe the contrary; as it is impossible from the same premises, believed to be the same, to infer 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 descent from that other, yet he may suspend his understanding, from any positive assent to it; which he cannot do when there is a command to believe it: This answer will not serve your turn; but first, it is against yourself, 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 time, in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man, at the same time, in th● same circumstances, necessary to be belieyed. Out of which words it followeth, that seeing, one can at no time disbelieve, or descent from that for which he hath the same reason, in virtue whereof he believes another thing, he must necessarily believe it, according to your doctrine. Secondly: If we believe a thing merely for some humane or natural Reason, you will not, I believe, be able to show that we are obliged to believe any one thing, and are not obliged to believe another, for which we have the same reason. For, if the command be only this; that reason obliges us to believe that which in reason deserves belief the reasons being equal, the necessity of believing must be equal. But if the command of believing be supernatural, or some Positive Divine Precept, than this must be notified to us 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 therefore, Thirdly; If I have the same reason of divine revelation to believe both, there is always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is that equal reason of divine revelation: and so your subtlety, That there is not always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof &c: is against reason, against yourself, and against all divinity. 11. I have no time to lose in examining your saying: If any man should doubt or disbelieve, that there was such a man as Henry the eight, king of England, it were most unreasonably done of him, yet it were no mortal sin, nor sin at all; God having no where commanded men underpayne of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe. Yet perhaps some would ask, whether you suppose, that he who in the example you give, so doubts or disbelieves, doth it vincibly, or invincibly? If invincibly; then in him it is not unreasonable: because he, in such circumstances could judge no otherwise, and so in him it is reasonable. For, it falls out often, that a true judgement may be imprudent, and unreasonable, if it be framed lightly, and for insufficient reasons; and contrarily, one may judge amiss for the material truth in itself, and yet judge prudently, if he be moved by probable reasons; and so a true judgement may be rash, and a false one prudent. But if he who so doubts, be supposed to err vincibly; you will not easily excuse him from all fault: for example, of pertinacy, and obstinacy of judgement against all wise men; or precipitation; or imprudency, or at least from an idle thought in his extravagant, unreasonable, 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 said of your Doctrine taken in general, that God hath no where commanded men to believe all which reason induceth them to believe; yet I leave it to be considered, whethert he particular example which you give may not seem in itself to imply something of the dangerous; for if it be no sin at all, to believe 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 Magistrates) some perhaps will infer, That if your Doctrine were true, it could be no sin at all to believe that they had no lawful Successors, seeing no body can succeed to a Chimaera, or to a Nobody, or a Nonentity, as you say King Henry may be without sin believed to have been. 12, But at least your friends will think you have spoken subtly, and to the purpose in your other reason, or example: That as an Executor that should perform the whole will of the dead, should fully satisfy the law, though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written will, which indeed is so: So I believe, that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity, and lives according to them, should be saved, though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists, nor the Epistles by the Apostles, Yet in this also, you either err against truth, or overthrow your own main cause. For, if such an Executor did not believe that Parchment to be the dead man's written will, and had no other sufficient ground to believe the contents to be his will, he should neither satisfy the law, (which gives him no power, but in virtue of the dead man's will) nor his own conscience, but should usurp 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 aught he knows, 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 seeing according to Protestants, de facto we know the contents of Scripture, and the Will and Commands of God delivered therein, only by Scripture itself, and by no other means of Tradition or declaration of the Church; if one be not obliged to believe the Scripture, he cannot be obliged to believe all, or any of the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity, nor can judge himself obliged to live according to them; nor can any man without injury deprive men of the liberty which they possess, by imposing upon their consciences such an obligation. 13. And here I must not omit your saying; that a man may be saved, 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, whereas it is clear, that nothing can be a Rule of Christian Faith, except it be the word of God; because Christian Faith, as I said, hath for its Formal Object, the Divine Revelation, or word of God, and nothing which is not such, can 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 unto those truths which the Church propounds, is Divine Revelation made in the Scripture. Nothing less than this; nothing but th●s can erect or qualify an act of supernatural faith, which must be absolutely undoubted and certain. In which words, although he err against truth, in saying, that the Divine Revelation on which Faith must rest, must be made in scripture, (seeing God's word or Revelation is the same whether it be written, or unwritten) yet even in that error he shows himself to be against your error, that one may believe or reject scripture, in which alone divine revelation is made according to him: and so take away scriptures, or the belief of them, all Revelations and Faith must be taken away; and he declares that nothing but God's 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 time that we come to the matter itself, and confute this error, which in effect I have done already, by occasion of examining some say of yours. 15 First then, I oppose yourself to yourself. And beside the places which I have alleged above out of your Answer to your Third Motive, where you confess scripture to have been confirmed, with those supernatural 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 proved which are to be believed. For it can never be proved by Scripture to againsayer, that there is a God, or that the Book called Scripture, is the word of God &c: In which words you rank scriptures among those things which are to be believed, which is to be a material Object of Faith, as the existence of God is such an object; besides, I say, the places which I have produced already, I must not omit what you say (Pag: 141. N. 28.) where you suppose that the Apostles revealed what Books are Canonical, and that what they delivered in that kind, is an Article of Faith, and if an Article of Faith, than it is a material object of Faith: and (Pag: 142. N. 29.) where you expressly say of some Books, that if they were approved 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 us to believe 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 extremes do you fall, teaching on the one side, that scripture is not a material object of Faith, and yet affirm that it, and it only, is the Object of Faith, by being the sole and adequate object thereof? And thus, as sometime you teach, that not scripture itself, but only the contents thereof are the object of Faith; so now you must say, that not the contents, but only scripture itself is the object thereof; because having begun to say, that scripture containeth the objects of Faith; by way of correcting that speech, you say it is rather the sole and adequate object of it; giving to vnderstand, that at least rather scripture, than the contents thereof are the object of Faith, and that you had spoken more truly, or more exactly, if you had said, scripture is the sole and adequate object of Faith, then in saying, it containeth the objects of Faith. To this I add, what you writ (Pag: 115. N. 156.) Nothing can challenge our belief, but what hath descended to us from Christ by original and universal Tradition: now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us, therefore 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 mean, that in truth deserve this name) do now, and always have believed the Scripture to be the word of God. Therefore, say, I the belief of all Christians that in truth deserve 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 deserve the name of Christian? Also if men may be saved by believing the mysteries of Christian religion, though they be ignorant of scripture, yea and deny it; how can you say, they deserve not the name of Christians? Or if they do not deserve that name, surely they cannot be saved. And, how can you say, all Christians in the world do now, and always have believed Scripture to be the word of God, since (P. 116. N. 159.) you affirm out of S. Irenaeus, that some barbarous nations believed the doctrine of Christ, and yet believed not the Scripture, and you say expressly these barbarous people might be saved. How then is it true, that all Christians have always believed scripture to be the word of God? last: you speak home when (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 reform; as if she should directly deny jesus 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 news for you to cotradict yourself, I confute your doctrine by other arguments. 16. Secondly; it is impossible to believe the matters contained in Scripture to be revealed by God, upon the Authority of Scripture, unless we believe the Authority of Scripture itself to be revealed. For how can I believe, a thing, because such a man affirms it, unless I believe, both that he affirms it, and that his word deserves credit? But Protestants believe the contents of scripture for the Authority of scripture, or, as we have heard Potter speaking (Pag. 143.) For divine revelation made in scripture: Therefore they must believe the Authority of scripture: and so scripture itself is no less a material Object of Faith, than the contents of it which are confessed to be a material object of Faith, because they are believed, 17. Thirdly. If Trismegistus, Plato, or any other of fallible Authority, had casvally delivered the same mysteries, which Christians believe he who should have taken them only upon such Authority, could not have believed by a firm, infallible, Divine Faith; Therefore it is not sufficient to believe the Matters contained in scripture, unless they be believed for some firm and infallible Authority: Therefore if we believe the mysteries of Christian Faith, for scripture, we must believe scripture itself to be of infallible Authority: And Protestants in particular can have no Faith at all, who pretend to believe all the mysteries of our Faith for the Authority of scripture alone, if scripture 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 speaks, had not been obliged to believe the mysteries of Christian Faith, unless they had been confirmed and made credible by Arguments, which proved them to proceed from God: but you grant that the scripture is proved to proceed from God, by those very Miracles which were wrought by Christ and his Apostles: therefore if these people were then obliged to believe the contents of scripture; christians now are for the same reason obliged to believe scripture itself 19 Fiftly. Not unlike to this Reason is that which I took from your own words; (Pag: 115. N. 156.) where you teach, that nothing can challenge our belief, but what hath descended to us by original and universal Tradition: and that scripture alone is such: therefore scripture doth challenge our belief, and is an object of Christian Faith. 20 From these two last Arguments, I deduce, that this Truth, (Sctipture is the word of God) is an object to be believed by Faith, though we should suppose, that it were proposed to one, whom God would not oblige to know the particular mysteries contained therein: because independently of any such obligation, it is sufficiently proposed as a thing revealed by God, and consequently as an Article of Faith, abstracting from any relation to a further end. Which consideration overthrows the ground of your assertion, that the belief of scripture is referred to the end of believing the contents of it, and therefore itself is not an object of Faith. 21. Sixtly. If we be not obliged to believe the scripture, Protestants are not bound to believe the contents thereof, as I have often said upon several occasions; because they have no notice of the contents, but by scripture itself. Neither can you answer, that we are obliged to believe scripture as a means to lead us to the verityes contained in it. For, this answer supposes, that I have some notice and belief of being obliged to believe the matter of scripture, before I believe the scripture; whereas 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 therefore must be believed before, we can be obliged to the belief of those particular Truths. So that if we have no antecedent obligation to believe scripture; we cannot possibly, in the grounds of Protestants, be obliged to believe, the contents thereof. Besides, this Answer overthrows your own Assertion, and grants that we are obliged to believe the scripture, at least as a means de facto necessary to attain the belief of the contents thereof; it being clear, that if I be obliged to attain an End, I am necessarily obliged to use the Means which is necessary to attain that End, and consequently this Answer doth not excuse you, but strongly proves that you have a strict obligation to believe scripture, since you are obliged to compass that End of the belief of those Divine Truths which it contains. Neither is our Question, whether scripture be a material Object believed for itself alone, as I said above, but whether it be an Object, which I am obliged to believe; 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 undiscernible corruption in those things which he would have known; otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known, the only means of continuing the knowledge of them, being perished. Much more you must say; it is apparent it had not been God's will that the contents of scripture should be known, if we need not know, yea if we may reject the only means of begetting or continuing the knowledge of them, which you in this very particular acknowledge to be scripture, and thence you infer that God could not but preserve it from any undiscernible corruption. 22. Seventhly. They who believed these Articles of Christian Faith, because the Apostles and Apostolical men did preach them, believed not only the mysteries or Matters which they preached, but also the Authority of those Preachers, as of persons worthy of credit, so that it was a material 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 therefore must be believed at least as much as the things believed: yourself saying (Pag: 377. N. 59) We must be surer of the proof, then of the thing proved, otherwise it is no proofs. Therefore 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 Means 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 can you exclude the authority of scripture from being a material Object of Faith, but you must likewise say, that men were not bound to believe the Authority of the Apostles when they preached; and consequently that they were not obliged to believe the Truths which they preached, and which they could believe only in virtue 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 believe the preaching or writing of the Apostles precisely as a means for attaining the belief of those Articles, which they believed already; yet they would remain obliged to believe the authority of the Apostles, if at any time it came to be sufficiently propounded, and proved by miracles, or other arguments of credibility, and could no more reject it, then they could disbelieve the articles of Christian Faith sufficiently proposed: Therefore the authority of the Apostles, and the infallibility of their preaching and writing, is sufficient to terminate an act of faith, that is, to be a material object thereof even of itself, or taken alone, because so taken, it may be proved to be revealed by God, which is the formal motive for which we believe all the material object of faith. Since therefore you teach, as I have often put you in mind, that scripture had been confirmed by Miracles, you cannot deny it to be a material object of Faith. And this argument is stronger against you, then the case I put, doth declare; wherein it was supposed, that the articles of our faith were known by some other means, then by the preaching or writing of the Apostles; whereas de facto you profess to know those articles only by scripture; which therefore you are obliged to believe vpon a double title or account, that is, both as it is credible in itself by divine arguments, abstracting from any further end; and also as a means to attain the said end of believing the articles therein contained. 23. Eightly. You confess, that we are obliged to believe the contents or verityes contained in scripture: but one of those is, that scripture itself is the word of God, and inspired by Him; therefore we are obliged to believe 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, etc. that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work. Which words, Protestants and yourself in part, allege to prove, that scripture is a perfect and total Rule of Faith. And if it be a perfect Rule, certainly it must be a Rule; therefore that scripture is a Rule of Faith, is a truth contained in scripture, and consequently a material Object of our Faith. Or if you will needs say, that we do not believe as an Object of Faith, scripture to be a total Rule of faith, you overthrew the cause of Protestants, and yourself, by confessing, it cannot be proved out of scripture, that scripture is such a total Rule, which is the thing I have mainly urged against you in my last Chapter; and if this cannot be done, why do you go about to do it, by alleging texts of scripture for that purpose? Or out of what ground can you possibly pretend to prove, that scripture alone is the Rule of Faith if you grant 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 said in scripture All scripture is divinely inspired. Show but as much for the Church: show where it is written, that all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired; and the controversy will b●at an end, that is, you will believe as a matter of Faith, that the decrees of the Church are infallible; seeing then scripture saith that itself is divinely inspired, you must believe 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 prove out of scripture, that it is a Rule evident for all necessary Points, for which they are wont to allege the words of the (Psalm 18. V 9) The precept of our Lord lightsome; illuminating the eyes, and (Psalm: 118. V 105.) Thy word is a lamp to my feet. and (2. Pet: 1. V 19) which you do well attending unto, as to a candle shining in a dark place. Therefore according to them; this Proposition, scripture is an evident Rule for all necessary Points, is a truth contained in scripture, and a material Object of Faith; unless they will grant what we urge against them, that it cannot be proved out of scripture that it is an evident Rule for such Points. Besides, (Pag: 143. N. 30.) you bring the said words of S. Paul, All scripture is divinely inspired, expressly and immediately to prove, that the Apostles were infallible in their writings: Therefore it is a truth contained in scripture, and consequently by your own confession, a material Object of Faith. Morover, we read (2. Pet. 1.20.21) understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For not by man's will was prophecy brought at any time: but the Holy men of God spoke, inspired with the holy Ghost. Therefore we are obliged to believe, as a truth contained in scripture, that the writers thereof spoke and wrote inspired by God. And what is oftener repeated in the Prophets, then, the word of our Lord was made to me, or the like? Therefore one truth contained in scripture is, that they wrote by divine inspiration. Doth not S. John begin his Apocalyps with these words: The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, which God gave him, &c: blessed is he that readeth and heareth the words of this prophecy? Which words declare that he wrote a Prophecy, which God gave him, or inspired into his mind: and so it is contained in scripture, and a material Object of our Faith, and his Apocalypse is the word of God; Which Truth being declared by S. John, men are bound to believe it as a matter of Faith, though they were supposed to know all the contents of the Apocalypse by other means, for example, by immediate Revelation or Inspiration, as S. John himself came to know them; unless you will say, that men may reject what an Apostle hath set down 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? Therefore it is a material object of Faith, that S. Paul's Epistles are the word of God, even although one were not bound to know the particular contents of them, or had known them by some other means: Therefore your Doctrine, that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the contents of scripture, though we deny scripture itself, is clearly against scripture, and repugnant to a truth contained therein. 24. Ninthly and lastly; in stead of an argument, I may express a just admiration, how such a Doctrine as this could appear 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, thereby be wrayeth himself to be an heretic: And hitherto all English, and other Protestants, have pretended to oppose themselves against the Swenckfeldians, who rejected all the Scripture, as you say one may do, and yet be saved. And certainly if men be not obliged to believe Scripture as a matter of Faith, it imports nothing, whether they accept, or reject it: if also they do not believe it to be the word of God, what certain credit can they give to it? and if Christians did not believe it to be such, they would account it very great foolishness, to believe mysteries, which seem repugnant to all Philosophy and natural Reason, and deprive men of those things, to which nature is most inclined, upon any Testimony or Authority, less than Divine. And this your Doctrine is less tolerable, because you are not able to bring in favour thereof, any one argument deserving answer. 25. You say indeed (Pag: 116. N. 159.) that without knowing or believing scripture, one may perform the entire condition of the new Covenant, which is, that we believe the matter of the Gospel, and not that it is contained in these or these Books. 26. But this is a plain begging the Question, to suppose or affirm without proof, that one condition of the new Covenant is not, to believe 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 believe what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared to have been revealed by him. Now that scripture hath been revealed by God, is proved with the many Miracles which the Apostles wrought to confirm that they were messengers of God, and Infallible in all matters, which they delivered by word or writing, and therefore 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, fundamental, or not fundamental, before one can be obliged to believe them. 27, Since then according to your Doctrine, we are not obliged to believe Scripture to be the word of God, yea and may reject it: It remains true, then, as I said in the last Chapter, Scripture cannot be a perfect Rule, nor any Rule at all of Faith, although we should falsely suppose, that it contains evidently all things necessary to be believed. For, what can it avail me in order to the exercising an act of Faith, to read any Point in that Book, which I conceive myself not obliged to believe? Let us now come to another error of yours. 28. Your second error I find (Pag. 144. N. 31.) where you writ thus. If you be so infallible as the Apostles were, show it as the Apostles did; They went forth (saith S. Mark) and preached every where, the lord working with them, and confirming their words with signs following. It is impossible that God should lie, and that the eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falsehood, or of such Doctrine as is partly true, and partly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was entirely true and in no part either false or uncertain. I say, in no part of that which they delivered constantly as a certain 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 time in error repugnant to a revealed Truth, it is unanswerably evident from the story of the Acts of the Apostles. For notwithstanding our Saviour's express warrant and injunction to go and preach to all Nations, yet until 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 unlawful for them to go or preach the Gospel to any but the jews. And (Pag. 145. N. 33.) you say, the Apostles could not be the Church's Foundations without freedom from error in all those things which they delivered constantly, as certain 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 us certain, and receyved as Divine Truth. 1. It must be delivered constantly. 2 It must be delivered as a Divine Truth. 3. It must have the Artestation of Divine Miracles; and these conditions you require for every part thereof. For you say, the Doctrine of the Apostles was false or uncertain in no part, and then you add expressly this limitation, I say, in no part of that which they delivered constantly, as a certain Divine Truth, and which had the Artestation of Divine Maracies You cannot deny but that the Apostles, if they conceyved that the Gospel was not to be preached to the Gentills, did frame that opinion out of some apprehended Revelation (for example, In viam gentium ne abieritis (Matth: 10.5.) Into the way of the Gentiles go 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 Point, 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 have all the said three conditions, and that the Apostles after the sending of the Holy Ghost, might fail in some of them, and might teach an error in delivering matters concerning Faith and Religion. 30. If this be so; what certainty can we now have, that they on whom Christians are builded as upon their Foundation (Ephes. 2.20) have not erred in writing, as than they erred in speaking? And in particular, whether they did not err in setting down that very command which (Pag: 137. N. 21.) You cite out of S. Matth: (29.19.) Go and teach all Nations: And so at this present, we cannot be certain, whether the Apostles erred in their first thoughts of not preaching, or in their second, of preaching the Gospel to Gentiles. If they were universally assisted by the Holy Ghost, they could err in neither; without it, in both: and if once you deny such an universal assistance, we cannot possibly know when they are to be trusted; and how can you be certain, that S. Luke hath not erred in declaring this very Story, out of which you would prove that S. Peter and the other Apostles did err? You grant (Pag: 35. N. 7.) That the means to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion, must be endued with an universal 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 believe, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful Assent in any thing. Seeing therefore you teach, that the Apostles were deceived in a thing, which God required them to believe, and commanded them to practise; according to your own saying, we can yield unto them but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing. What the Apostles spoke or preached, they might have written (it is your own saying (Pag: 54. N. 7.) Whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth, may also be written:) neither had it been more or less true or false, by being committed to writing, than if it had been only spoken or preached: and so if they could err in speaking, we cannot be sure but that their writings may contain some error, proceeding from inadvertence or prejudice, or some other cause, as you speak (Pag: 137. N. 21.) This I may confirm by what you say to Ch: Ma: (Pag: 84.86.) D. Fields words, I confess, are somewhat more pressing, and if he had been infallible, and the words had not slipped unadvisedly from him, they were the best Argument in your Book. In which words, I note, that although D. Field had been infallible, yet words might have slipped from him unadvisedly even in writing (for you speak of what he hath written in his Book) and therefore much more if the Apostles were supposed to have been fallible, and actually to have erred, (as you say they did) why might not their error have unadvisedly slipped from them into their writings? 31. If you answer, that it belongs to God's providence, not to permit an error to be set down in writing, and conveyed to posterity: I reply; by this very Reason it is clear, that God could not permit the Apostles to err against any revealed Truth, and yet oblige us to believe with certainty their writings, which we can believe only for the Authority and Infallibility of the Writers; especially, since you pretend, that this error of theirs is also transmitted to posterity, by being recorded by S. Luke whom you allege: and so if your false assertion were true, we are as sure that they held an error, as that they delivered any truth, because we believe both by the same Authority of scripture; yea according to your doctrine related above, we are not obliged to believe, that scripture itself is the word of God, and yet are bound to believe the truths delivered therein, one of which you affirm to be, that the Apostles did err, and therefore we must believe that they erred, and yet may deny the Authority of scripture, which relates that error. God, I say cannot in his Holy Providence be contrary to himself, and oblige us to believe with certainty, the writing of those whom we believe to have erred, and yet for whose Infallibility we believe those very writings to be infallible. For, the Apostles were not infallible because they wrote Scripture; but we believe Scripture to be infallible, because it was written by the Apostles, who by Divine Means (even before they wrote any Scripture) immediate proved themselves to be infallible and worthy of all credit, and so mediate those same Means, proved their writings to be Divine and infallible. We could not believe any Book to be Canonical, if we did think it delivered any one point contrary to some other Part of the Scripture; and how can we certainly believe the Apostles in other Matters of Faith, if we once yield them to have erred and contradicted truth, in any one? 32. The second condition required by you, for assuring us, that the Doctrine of the Apostles was neither false, nor uncertain, is, that it be delivered by them as a certain Divine Truth. This also is a source of uncertaintyes. For Scripture is not wont to declare expressly, or as I may say, in actu signato, whether the Writers thereof intended to deliver this, or that, as a certain Divine Truth; and though they had done so, yet if their infallibility be not Universal, we could not believe them with certainty in that Declaration: And if their infallibility be Universal, we must believe them, though they use no such expression, of a certain Divine Truth. Hitherto it hath been believed, that Scripture is the word of God, and that all the Verityes contained in it, though otherwise they be but natural truths, are revealed or testified by God, and by that Means grow to be both certain and Divine, as invested with the supernatural Divine Testimony. Now if some things be delivered in Scripture, as certain Divine Truths, others not; you make Scripture an Aggregate of different kinds of Truths, without being able to give any infallible, certain, general Rule (and not only some probable conjecture of your own) to know positively, and certainly, when the Scripture speaks of one kind, and when of another; which yet in your grounds is necessary for giving us assurance, whether the Doctrine of the Apostles, be entirely true and in no part false or uncertain. For if that condition of delivering a certain Divine Truth, do not subsist, we have not a sufficient ground to exercise an act of Divine 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 have the attestation of Divine Miracles; which either discredits the writings of the Apostles, and most of the Uerityes contained in them; or else confutes your onwe. Doctrine that the Apostles might err in Matters belonging to Religion For if you mean, that every particular Truth which they preached, must be confirmed by Miracles, you disoblige men from believing innumerable Points of Scripture, for which we have no proof, that they were so particularly confirmed; yea we have no proof from Scripture, that the Apostles did ever directly and immediately confirm by Miracles, that it is the word of God; and yet upon this ground all the pretended Religion of Protestants, that is, the whole Bible, and Truths contained therein, 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 undoubted arguments, they approved themselves as it were in general, that they were worthy of credit in all Matters belonging to Religion; than you cannot maintain, that S. Peter, who wrought many Miracles to prove himself a man sent from, and approved, by God, did err in that particular main article about preaching the Gospel to Gentiles; or if he could err 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 Canonical Writers. last; I confute these your errors by your own words (Pag. 290. N. 88) To speak properly, not any set known company of men is secured, that, though they neglect the means of avoiding error, yet certainly they shall not err, 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 judges of controversies; And (Pag. 60. N. 17.) That none is fit to be judge but he that is infallible: Therefore according to you, we must infer, that the Apostles were secured not to err, though they were supposed to neglect the means of avoiding error, and consequently they neither did, nor could err by inadvertence or prejudice, or by any neglect of the means to avoid 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, seeing they were efficaciter led into all truths? And yet again, 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 their office to be so. For if they must have been so of necessity, and could not have been otherwise, in vain had he put them in fear of that which follows, if the salt have lost his Savour, etc. If this be so, what certainty can we have that de facto the Apostles did not err, seeing they may err? 34. Your Objection is easily answered. S. Peter himself never doubted whether the Gospel were to be preached to the Gentiles. 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, as exhibited to S. Peter, was ordained to the satisfaction, not of all Christians, but of converted Jews, 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, Jews made Christians) reasoned against him, saying, why didst thou enter into men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them? And accordingly S. chrysostom (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 little, and mark upon what pretence. They said not, why hast thou preached? 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 Jews were not offended with S. Peter for preaching to, but for eating, with, Gentiles. That before the conversion of Cornelius, other Gentiles were become Christians, Cornel. a Lapide (in Act. Cap. 10. post versum 48.) affirms and proves by divers arguments: and therefore S. Peter was not ignorant, that he and the other Apostles were to preach to the Gentiles, but he did abstain from preaching publicly, and as it were solemnly, to avoid the offence of Jews converted to Christ till by this heavenly vision he might sweetly and effectually persuade 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 said necessarily and opportunely, I have never eaten. Did he himself fear? God forbidden. But God's spirit did so direct him, that he might have in readiness, a defence against those who would reprehend him, &c: (Not o Lord, because I have never eaten any common or unclean thing) And a voice came to him; That which God hath purified, do not thou call common. This seemed to be spoken to him, but indeed it was wholly directed to the Jews; for if the master (S. Peter) be blamed, much more they: that is the Jews for thinking that it was unlawful to eat with Gentiles. It appears then, that neither S. Peter nor the other Apostles, did fear to deal and preach to the Gentiles, but the Holy Ghost spiritus moderabatur, (as S. chrysostom speaks,) and ordained all for the satisfaction of others. 35. But for better understanding this whole matter, we are to reflect on three things. For, we may consider; first, the eating of Jews with Gentiles: 2. Eating meats forbidden to the Jews. 3. preaching to them. Now, S. chrysostom, as we have seen, observes, that the Jews were offended with S. Peter for eating with Gentiles, and if we consider, as I may say, the letter, or the most immediate literal sense of the vision made to S. Peter, it had respect to the Law of the Jews, to whom certain meats were forbidden, and esteemed unclean, as appears (Chap: 10. V 12.) Where in were all fourfooted beasts and that creep on the earth, and fowls of the air; and accordingly S. Peter said (V 14.) I have never eaten any common or unclean thing. And there is not any thing said directly and precisely of preaching to Gentiles, but at most by consequence, because the Apostles could not commonly and constantly preach to them, but that they should have occasion to eat with them: or else by way of signification, or that unclean meats in general, did also signify Gentiles, whom the Jews esteemed as it were unclean and irreligious persons: Yet preaching and Eating are of their nature, different: as, we may deal with an excommunicate person for his conversion, though ordinarily we may not eat with him. This being so; you cannot affirm, that the Apostles did think it unlawful to preach to the Gentiles, unless you do also believe that they judged Christians converted from Judaisme, to be obliged to observe the whole Law of the Jews, in conformity to the vision presented to S. Peter, of all sorts of beasts or meats which the Jews could not lawfully eat. Will you grant this? Will you rank the Apostles with that faction of Pharisees converted to Christ, which troubled the most primitive Church, by preaching that the Jewish Law was necessary to salvation, even for converted Gentiles? S. Paul saith, If you be circumfised, Christ shall profit you nothing (Gal: 5. N. 2.) And do you think, that the Apostles were in an error, which must draw upon them so heavy a doom? A Council was gathered about this matter, not that the Apostles could doubt thereof, but for satisfaction and quiet of Christians: and in like manner, that vision was showed to S. Peter, not for rectifying any error of his own about preaching to Gentiles, but for pacifying and settling the minds of Jews converted to Christianity. Have we not heard you say (Pag. 101. N. 127.) That it is clear in Scripture, that the observation of the Mosaical Law is not necessary? And therefore it cannot be imagined that the Apostles, for whose authority we believe the scripture, could doubt thereof. Or if you think the Apostles might err about the necessity of observing the Mosaical Law, what certainty can we have, notwithstanding the Definition of that first Council, but that still we may think the keeping of Moses his Law to be necessary? you see how much you did exaggerate in saying; that the Apostles themselves, for a time continued in an error repugnant to a revealed Truth, is unanswerably evident from the story of the acts of the Apostles; seeing this Story, as you will needs understand it, doth either prove nothing for your purpose, or more than you will grant, or is true in itself, and so by proving too much you come to prove nothing at all: and this only remains true; That although scripture did contain all necessary truths. yet we could not believe them, for such a scripture as you offer us, which certainly could be no Rule of Faith at all. 36. Your Third error (for I am willing to reduce them to as small a number as I can, though in those which I have laid together 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 several errors) Your third error, I say, is set down 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. Therefore when S. Paul says (1. Epist: to the Cor: 7.12.) To the rest speak I, not the Lord; And again, concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I deliver my judgement: If we w●ll pretend, that the Lord did certainly speak, what S. Paul spoke, and that his judgement was God's 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 own judgement, touching some things which God had not particularly revealed unto him. 37. This your doctrine I confute as I have done your other errors. For, if the Apostles sometime deliver things as the dictates of humane Reason and prudence, we cannot believe with certainty any thing they deliver, unless you con give us a certain Rule, how to discern when they utter such things, and when they deliver Divine Revelations. Yea, according to your Principles, who must prove all by Scripture alone, you must give us such a certain Rule, out of some evident Text of Scripture. As you teach, that God may permit true Miracles to be wrought to delude men, much more may you say, that he may permit the Apostles to write their own dictamen and judgement, without declaring whether they writ only such dictamen, or else 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.) saith, 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 married to whom she will, only in the Lord. But she i● happier if she so abide, after my judgement: and I think also that I have the spirit of God. Now consider, I pray you, that S. Paul in these words advises a thing for widows, which God hath not commanded, and so might have said in this place, I speak, not our Lord, and then when he adds; I think also, that I have the spirit of God; I ask whether he speak these words out of humane prudence, or by divine Revelation and inspiration? If he speak by divine Revelation, you have no reason to say, that he delivers not a divine Revelation, when 12.) he says, To the rest speak I, not our Lord. But if S. Paul in these words, I think also that I have the spirit of God, speak not out of divine inspiration, but only out of a probable hope or persuasion that he had the spirit of God, how can we believe by divine infallible Faith that his writings are true in any Point? Especially if you consider that he teaches, widows would be more blessed if they remained so, for this very Reason that he advises it, and that he thinks himself to have the spirit of God: which proof supposes that he was endued with an universal infallibility, and that therefore his counsel in this particular matter was best. And this word (I think) might with greater show of reason, make men believe that S. Paul was not certain, that he had the spirit of God, than the reason which you allege that he spoke out of humane prudence. For, what consequence is this? Our Lord hath commanded nothing in this particular, but I give this advice or Counsel as the best; Therefore S. Paul speaks not by divine inspiration: Or thus: by inspiration I say God hath not commanded: therefore I speak not by inspiration in that which I Counsel: as if God could not inspire both parts of this speech, that is, both his saying, that God did command, and yet, that the thing not commanded was better than the contrary, seeing 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 was no command) it is very inconsequent to affirm 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 have not a Command of our Lord for Virgins, but I give Counsel, 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 counsel it? And by what art can you persuade men that he spoke the first] I have 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 which, as I said, being true, both might be uttered by divine inspiration, as indeed they were. And those other words, speak I, not our Lord, show only, that our B. Saviour left power to the Apostles and their Successors to advise, Counsel, ordain, or command some things, as several occasions might require which he himself had not commanded in particular. Which is a most certain Truth and the ground of Obedience and subordination to Lawful Pastors in God's Church, and cannot be denied by protestants themselves; and therefore it is not only a dictate of humane prudence. 39 All this will appear more manifest; if we ponder S. Paul's words as they lie. He saith (V. 5.) Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return again together, lest 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 time, that you may give yourselves to prayer, (in the greek, and to fasting) which is not a command, but a counsel: and thirdly, return again together, which is neither a command nor a counsel, but a permission, or indulgence to avoid ā evil, and not as a thing which he judged to be best; which he declares in the next (Verse 6.) But I say this by indulgence, not by commandment; and then (V 7.) declaring what he judged to be the best, he saith; For I would all men to be as myself: and (V 8.) But I say to the unmarried, and to widows; it is good for them if they so abide, even as I also. Behold then a Command, a Counsel, a Permission! Now I ask, whether in all these S. Paul spoke by Revelation, or only out of humane prudence? 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 confirm what I said, that we can have no certainty, when he utters things revealed or only his own judgement. For, although in the words rehearsed, he say not expressly, not I, but, our Lord, nor, not our Lord, but I; yet he might have said so, seeing he declared both a Commandment of God, and so might have said, (not I but our Lord) and a Conunsell, and might have said (not our Lord, but I) And therefore when he saith (V. 10. and 11.) But to them that be joined in matrimony, not I give commandment, but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband: and if she depart, to remain unmarried, 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 speaks by another spirit or motion then in the precedent verses where he might have used the same words, not our Lord, but I and, not I, but our Lord, and therefore he must be understood 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. Paul's Writings, doth he ever say; in this God inspires me to speak, and I speak not of myself: in this other, God doth not inspire me to speak, but I speak of myself? Is it all one to say; God commands, not I; and to say, God inspires, and I speak not of myself; Or I command, not God; that is I advise of myself, not inspired by God? Command or counsel, are words of very different significations from inspired or not inspired; neither can any man precisely infer one from another, as you would make us believe, that S. Paul was inspired, when he said, God commands; and not inspired when he said, I Counsel. And if you say, S. Paul spoke not by inspiration when he said, I give Counsel; with what certainty can you say, that even his setting down in writing the Command of God, and his own counsel, proceeded from inspiration? And so we can have no certainty of S. Paul's writings, unless we believe that he spoke by inspiration as well when he gave advise, and Counsel, as when he declared a Divine Command. And therefore after he had said (V 40.) of widows; more blessed shall she be, if she so remain according to my counsel, he adds presently, and I think that I also have the spirit of God; lest any should think he spoke and advised, only out of humane prudence, and not by Divine inspiration, as if the Holy Ghost had foreseen, that there would not want such blasphemers, as you are. S. chrysostom (Hom. 19 in Cap. 7.1. Cor.) speaking of the words of S. Paul, Ego & non ego, I and not I: saith; that they signify the Precept of God, and the judgement of S. Paul, as I said; and then adds, Lest you should think those things to be humane, therefore he added, and I think that I have also the spirit of God. And the same Holy Father (apud Salmeronem Tom. 14. Disp. 12. Pag 94.) saith; For that cause, he, S. Paul, said; not our Lord, but I; not meaning to signify thereby, 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 upon earth, but doth now deliver it by him. And afterward: fear not: for I said so, because that I have Christ speaking in me, neither do thou suspect, that that speech is in any part humane. And Theodoret. (ap. Salm: ib.) writes upon these words, in this manner; this I say; which signify, I have not found this Law written in the Gospels, but now I ordain it. And that the Laws of the Apostle are the Laws of God is manifest to those who are instructed in Divine Matters. For it is his voice: seek you an experiment of him that speaketh in me, Christ? And S. Austin (Tract. 37. in Joan.) hath these words; Sometime men, of those things of which they are certain, seem by way of reprehension to doubt; that is, they use 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 saith to some who did despise him; (just as you do) and I think that I also have the spirit of God. He that says I think, seems 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 son of man coming shall he find think you, Faith in the earth? Thus S. Austin. 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 clear S. Paul speaks this (And I think, that I also have the spirit of God) not of any command of God, but of a Counsel, which he gave for widows to abstain from marriage: in which therefore those his words, not our Lord but I, have place. And indeed, as S. Paul, if he had spoken only the dictates of humane reason and been subject to error, when he said (V 10.11.) To them that be joined in matrimony, not I give commandment, but our Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife) had put a great command upon Christians, for which he had no certainty or warrant; so also counselling perpetual chastity as the best, if it be not so indeed (as he might err if he spoke only by humane prudence) he had much diminished the natural freedom, which people have to marry, or perpetually live chaste. 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 counsel from such a person, could not but much move, and as I may say, more than incline them, thereto. 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 undoubted answers, by Revelation from God, upon which they might securely build their Christian Faith, in matters of so great moment: and as they believed him speaking of our Saviour's command against divorce, so they believed him advising chastity, and supposed they might do it as safely in both, as in one for, Point of S. Paul's being inspired. And this consideration urges so much the more, as the Corinthians were like to find greater difficulty in those Points, for Virgins to remain always such, and for widows to abstain from a second marriage; in regard they were much given to sensual delights, as Writers have observed, and appears out of S. Paul in divers places; and therefore to exhort them in those beginnings to perpetual chastity, had been both burden some and dangerous to them, and not safe for S. Paul himself, if he had done it without certainty, communicated by divine inspiration. 41. Thus we see, that he having (V. 35.) counselled virginity, presently (V. 36) adds; and this I speak to your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; as like wise having said (V 27.) Art thou lose from a wife? Seek not a wife: he adds, (V 18.) but if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned: and is it not a very preposterous conceit, to say, that in the first part, seek not a wife, which is a counsel, he utters only a dictate of prudence; and in the second, if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned which implies a matter of Faith, he speaks by inspiration? What is this but to bring all the writings of S. Paul to an uncertainty? And, as I said above 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 God's word Apocryphal 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 cozen people, who believe that all is scripture which is contained in S. Paul's Epistles? You say, the Bible hath been confirmed, by Miracles. I ask whether all truths contained in it have been so confirmed or no: If they have, seeing you say here, (N. 31.) it is impossible God should set his hand and sea●e to the confirmation of a falsehood, at least now all the words of S. Paul are attested by God, and grown to be matters of Faith, though we should falsely suppose, they were not such, in virtue of his teaching them, as our Saviour said, If ye will not believe me believe the works (Joa: 10.38.) If you say, all Truths in scripture were not confirmed by Miracles; it is as good, in order to us, as if none had been so confirmed; since the Miracles themselves do not specify, what in particular they confirm, and what not: and so we can only believe in general, that some Points contained in the Bible, are Truths; but this is not enough to believe with certainty any one in particular. Besides all this, S. Paul in counselling virginity, counsels the same which our B. Saviour had done before, as is recorded (Matth: 12.12.) and therefore he delivers a Divine Revelation which he knew to be such, and spoke not out of humane prudence, as you would have him. If it be objected; how then doth he say: I speak not, but our Lord? janswer. It cannot be said, I speak not by inspiration, but our Lord: (for what an incongruous speech were that?) But, I speak signify, I counsel, advise, command, or permit, by antithesis to those other words (V 10.) Not I give command, but our Lord. You know, Catholics are wont to allege this Chapter of S. Paul, to prove as a Point of Faith, the counsel of perpetual virginity; and yet never any of our Adversaries, have 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 clear and unanswerable reply, that we could not prove by that place perpetual virginity to be more perfect, as a Point of Faith, if they had been of your mind; and they might easily have told us, that we could not prove an Article of Faith, by words which the Apostle himself professes to contain but a humane dictamen. But so it is. They who once forsake God's Church, learn only, and practise, and teach others this lesson; Evil men and seduce ●s shall prosper to the worse; erring and driving into errors. (2, ●●noth: 3. V 32.) 42. I would gladly make an end of this matter. But first, I must ask, how you can say, (N. 32.) If we will pretend, that the Lord did certainly speak what S. Paul speaks, and that his judgement was God's commandment, shall we not plainly contradict S. Paul, and that spirit by which he wrote? For, who ever pretended, that S. Paul's judgement was God's command? Contrarily, when his judgement is, that such a thing is no command of God, we do most firmly believe, 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, speak I, not our Lord, than when (V 10.) he declared a command, not I, but our Lord. 43. Now upon the whole matter; it follows out of this your Error: that although all things necessary to be believed, were contained in scripture; yet that were not enough to make it a sufficient Rule, or any Rule at all, for Christian Faith: seeing we cannot be absolutely certain, when the writers thereof set down 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 have erred therein; so we cannot be sure, that indeed he gave any such judgement or counsel, but that as in counselling, so in writing and setting down that counsel, he was no more assisted by Inspiration, than in giving it. And I will end with these words of Christanity Maintained (about the said Texts of S. Paul) (Chap: 4. N. 9 Pag: 44.) Certainly if the Apostles did sometimes write out of their own private judgement or spirit; though it were granted that themselves could discern the diversity of those motions or spirits, (which one may easily deny, if their universal infallibility be once impeached) yet it is clear that others, to whom they spoke or wrote, could not discern the diversity of those spirits in the Apostles. For which cause, learned Protestants acknowledge, that although each man's private spirit were admitted for direction of himself, yet it were not use full for teaching others. Thus you say (P. ●41. N. 27) A supernatural assurance of the incorruption of scriptures may be an assurance to ones self, but no argument to another. And as you affirm (Pag. 62. N. 25) that Books that are not Canonical 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 do; nor that they deliver not such Revelations though they say nothing thereof, if once we deny their universal infallibility. A fourth Error is set down in your (Pag: 62. N. 24. and Pag: 141. N. 27.) where you profess to know no other means to be assured of the scriptures incorruption, than you have that any other Book is incorrupted, and that your assurance of both, is of the same kind and condition (though this for scripture be fare greater for the degree) both Moral assurances, and neither physical or Matematicall. 44. If this Doctrine may pass for true, it will necessarily follow, that the assurance which we have of scripture, must not only be of the same kind, but be far less for the degree of it; seeing the books of profane Authors, have a more full testimony and tradition of all sorts of men, Atheists, Pagans, Jews, Turks, and Christians; whereas the Bible was either unknowen, or impugned, or not much regarded by all, except Christians, and by some also who pretended to the name of Christian. Time's stood so with the Jews, that the Old scripture was once lost, as some say, or at least lay hid; and Christians had not those commodities, to transcribe faithfully Copies of the new Testament, which pagans had for publishing their Books: Whence it comes to pass, that we find not so many divers readings, in Cicero, Virgil, and other profane books, as we find in scripture. To which, if we add the many vulgar Translations, and Editions, to what uncertainty shall we be brought, if we proceed only by humane moral 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 never permit such corruptions to happen, or will never make use of them: As we were assured, the Apostles could never approve any corruption in scripture, though in their times it could not be avoided, but that Errors might be committed, by the diversity of transcribers so many centuryes of years before Printing was in use. And in vain do you [Pag. 62. N. 24.] allege, that Divine providence will never suffer the way to Heaven to be blocked up, or made invisible; which no man denies; but seeing his holy Providence cannot be contrary to itself, and disposes of all things sweetly, by Means proportionable to his Ends, we must even from hence gather, that he hath left Means to beget a true divine supernatural Faith, more firm than we yield to humane stories: which cannot be done by scripture alone, if we neither be certain that it is not corrupted, nor have any other infallible Guide to rely on, besides the bare written word; and so this your Assertion proves that which you seek most to avoid, that scripture alone, even though it were falsely supposed to contain 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 remain uncertain and unsatisfyed, whether perhaps it be not corrupted in that part upon which we build our assent. 54. Your sift Error, not unlike to this, I touched above out of your (Pag. 116. N. 159.) where you say; We have, I believe, as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England, as that jesus Christ suffered Under Pontius Pilate. You should have said; we have far greater reason to believe 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 have a more full and universal Tradition, and Consent of all sorts of Persons, that there were such men as Caesar, &c: and that they fought such battles, obtained such victories, and the like, than that there was one called Jesus Christ, that he had Disciples &c: And what Christian can hear this without detestation? Your saying, that we have as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight, as that Jesus Christ suffered &c: seems to signify, that we have as great reason to believe what is delivered by humane History or Tradition, as that which is testified or revealed by God, since you pretend to believe that scripture which gives witness to Christ Jesus, is the word of God, and yet affirm that we have as great reason to believe, there was such a man as Henry the eight (which we know only by humane tradition) as that Jesus Christ suffered Under Pontius Pilate, which we learn from scripture. If you grant this, as it seems you expressly do; I suppose your ground must be, that which you express (Pag: 36. N. 8.) that the Conclusion always follows the worse 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 confidence of the truth of the relation, cannot but be rebated and lessened by my diffidence in the Relatour: and therefore because we know only by moral certainty (as you speak in the same place) that scripture is the word of God, and that the contents thereof were revealed by God, and confirmed by Miracles, our belief can be proportionable only to those moral 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 have as great reason to believe that, as this. If this be your meaning, and vpon this ground; then I infer, which hither to I have not so absolutely done, that Christian Faith, with you, is not only fallible, and not absolutely certain, but also is no more, yea (as I have proved,) less certain, though it be testified by God, than if it had been testified, 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 wholly and only by the means or probability by which such a Testimony is conveyed to our understanding. And this must be the cause which moves you to say, that we have as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight, as that Jesus Christ suffered Under 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 have the same motives to believe that God testifyes a thing, and that man doth testify it, we have greater reason to believe what is testified by God, than what is testified by man; than you contradict what yourself say, that we have as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight, as that Jesus Christ suffered Under Pontius Pilate. Howsoever; I must still conclude, that seeing, according to your Principles, and express words, we have as great, yea, as I have proved, greater reason to believe there was a Caesar, Pompey &c: than Jesus Christ, what will it avail us, in order the exercising to an Act of true Christian Faith, that all Points necessary to be believed, are contained in Scripture, if in the mean time we have as great reason to believe what is related in profane Stories, as what is revealed in scripture? 46. A sixth Error you teach (Pag. 67. N. 38.) I may believe even those questioned Books to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonical; but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly, as ●f those Books which were never questioned. At least, I have no warrant to damn 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 denial. And (Pag. 69. N. 45.) The Canon of Scripture, as we r●●eyue it, is builded upon Universal Tradition. For we do not profess ourselves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain, neither do we urge others to be so, of those Books, which have been doubted, as of those that never have. But this is not all. For to the words of Cham Ma. (Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 9) That according to the sixth Article of the English Protestants, which saith; In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church, the whole Book of Esther must quit the Canon, and divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized, to wit, all those, of which some Ancients have doubted, and those which divers Lutherans have of late denied. You answer (Pag. 68 N. 43.) When they say, Of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church, they mean 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 time doubted of by the whole Church, or by all Churches, but had attestation, though not universal, yet at least, sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonical. 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 prevail against the contrary suffrages. 47. Nothing could more lively set before our eyes the necessity of believing, that God's Church, from which we receive Holy Scripture, is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, than these your Assertions, and pernicious Errors, 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 received upon the Authority of the Church, considered only as a company of men subject to error, and not as infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost, who can blame one for inferring, that if those men once doubted of some Books of Scripture, such books cannot challenge so firm a belief, as others in which all have always agreed? Though even these in which all have agreed, can never arrive 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 Error: If it be granted, that we believe some books of Scripture more undoubtedly than other, by reason of a greater or less consent, and so give way to more or less in the belief of God's word, we shall soon come to end in nothing. For why may not those books of which sometime there was doubt, and were afterward receyved for Canonical, in time lose some voices or sussrages, and by that means come to be discanonized? You teach that we have not infallible certainty, but only a probability for any part of Scripture; how far then shall we be removed from certainty, for those books which participate of that probability in a less and less degree? The common Doctrine of Protestants, is, that Scripture became a total Rule of Faith, when the Canon was perfited, because they cannot determine with certainty, in what particular books necessary Points are contained. If then some parts of Canonical Scripture be more undoubted than others; in case some fundamental points chance to be set down only in these others, it follows, not only that they cannot be so certain of the Truth of those necessary Points, as of other truths not fundamental, or of no necessity at all, being considered in themselves; but also that they cannot be certain at all; since it is supposed that they do not believe those books 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 upon Ionas says: comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture, are both odious, and dangerous: The Apostles names are evenly placed in the writings of the holy foundation. With an unpartial respect have the children of Christ's family from time to time, receyved, reverenced, and embraced the whole volume of scriptures. Mark that it is both odious and dangerous to make comparisons betwixt scripture and scripture, and that the children of Christ's family with an unpartial respect receyve the whole Volume of scriptures. Yourself (Pag 68 N. 42.) say, that the controversy about scripture, is not to be tried by most Voices; and what is the greater number, of which we have heard you speak in the next (N. 43.) that it was sufficient to prevail against the contrary suffrages, but only most voices, or consent in one judgement, seeing you attribute infallibility, or the certain 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 special assistance of the Holy Ghost, and few for number, even one single person, may for weight have as good reason for what he says, as a great multitude for the contrary. There is scarcely any part of scripture, which hath not been Questioned by so many as would have made men doubt of the works of Cicero, Livy, &c: as we see men doubt of some works, which have gone under the name of Old Authors, because, for example, Erasmus, or others, have called them in Question, upon mere conjectural reasons, as seeming difference of Style, or the like. If then men have not presumed to doubt of scripture, as they would have done of other Writings, it is because they believe God's church to be equally infallible in all that she propounds, though some perhaps doubted before such a Proposition, or Definition. I have proved, that in your grounds we have greater certainty for what is related in humane stories, then for the contents of the most undoubted Books of scripture. What strength then can those Books of scripture have which you receive 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; therefore we have no warrant to damn 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 denial. 50. Answer: This very Objection proves the necessity of an infallible Living Judge, as will appear after I have first told you, that by this form of arguing, we may now be saved, though we believe no part of the whole Bible; because the time was when no part of it was written; We may now adhere to many old heresies, condemned by the whole Church, which before such a condemnation or definition. Saints might have held without damnation, or sin: We may now reject the Faith of Christ, because many were Saints and saved, in the Law of Nature, and Moses, without it. Yourself (Pag: 280. N. 66.) affirm, That what may be enough for men in ignorance, may be to knowing men not enough. That the same error may be not capital to those who want means of finding the truth, and capital to others who have means, and neglect to use them. Howsoever, we Catholics are safe by your own words, since we have the example of Saints in Heaven, and holy Fathers, (as is confessed even by Protestants) for those Practices, and Doctrines, which you will needs call Errors, beside S. Bernard, S. Bonaverture, and others, whom Protestants confess to be Saints in Heaven; and therefore by your own rule you have no warrant to damn us having such examples either to justify, or excuse us. If then you will stand to your own doctrine, you cannot deny, but at one time that may consist with salvation, which at another time is not compatible therewith. The Church of God hath defined what Books be Canonical; and this Definition all are obliged under pain of damnation to believe, and obey. And even by this, we may learn the necessity of acknowledging a Living Judg. All Books which are truly Canonical, were proposed and receyved by Crihstians. After ward the knowledge of some Books, and some truths, began to be obscured, or doubted of, or denied by some, and perhaps not by a few, and those of great authority, if we respect either learning, or other endowments, qualities, and abilities, under the degree of infallibility; as we see there wanted not in the Apostles time some who were zealous for the observation of the Mosaical Law: and as these could not have been confuted, convinced, and quieted, but by the infallibility of the first Council, held in Jerusalem; so, after some Books of scripture come once to be Questioned, it is impossible to bring men bacl to an unanimous, 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 said, be doubted of even by those many, and they which were receyved by few, may in time gain number and authority: and so all things concerning scripture, must be still ebbing, and flowing, and sloating in irremediable and endless uncertainty, of admitting and rejecting the Canonical Books. And what connection, or tie, or thread, can we have, 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 Books, which were not always known to be Canonical, have b●ne afterward receyved for such; but never any one Book or syllable defined for Canonical, was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphal. A sign that God's Church is infallibly 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 impugn, you think fit to cite imperfectly. For, where Cha: Ma: said; never any one Book or syllable defined by the Church, was afterward Questioned or rejected for Apocryphal, you leave out (by the Church) which words yield a plain Answer to your Objection, or any that can be made▪ Thus than you say: Tone●ing the first s●rt; if they were not commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonical, seeing after the Apostles, the Church pretends to no new Revelation, how can it be ●n Article of Faith to belicue them Canonical? 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 Canonical, low then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture, which hath suffered some Books of Canonical Scripture to be lost? And others to lose for a long time their being Canonical, at least, the necessity of being so esteemed, and afterward as it were by the Law of Postliminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalbiess unto them? If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church, the Point was sufficiently discussed, and therefore your Church's 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 Canonical Books were commended 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 Books have been lost, and others lost for a long time their being Canonical, or at least the necessity of being so esteemed? I answer: Your Argument is of no force against us Catholics, who believe an always Living Guide, the Church of God, by which we shall infallibly be directed in all Points belonging to Faith and Religion to the world's end, as occasion shall require; yea we bring this for a Demonstration, that the Church must be infallible, and Judge of Controversyes. There was no scripture for about two thousand years from Adam to Moses: And again for about two thousand years more from Moses to Christ our Lord, holy scripture was only among the people of Israenl: and yet there were Gentiles in those days endued 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 time, but successively, and upon several occasions, and some after the decease of most of the Apostles; and after they were written, they were not presently known to all Churches: and as men could be saved in those times without scripture, so afterward also, upon condition, that we have a Living Guide, and be ready to receive scripture, when it shall be proposed to us by that Guide But your Objection urges most against your brethren and yourself, who acknowledge no other Rule of Faith but scripture alone, and yet teach, that the duty of the Church is to keep scripture, which being now your only Rule and necessary for Faith and salvation, how doth she discharge her duty, if she hath suffered some Books to be lost? And others to lose for a long time their being Canonical, at least, the necessity of being so esteemed? Especially seeing you teach against other Protestants, that we receive scripture from the Authority of the Church alone, and therefore if she may fail either by proposing false scriptures, or in conserving the true ones, Protestants want all means of salvation. Neither can you answer, that it belongs to God's Providence, not to permit scripture to be wholly lost, since it is necessary to salvation. For you must remeber your own 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 excessive pride of those, who prefer their judgement before the Decrees of God's 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 Books? Beside, God in his holy Providence works by second causes or Means. If then he permit some scriptures to be lost, and yet his Will be, that there remain a way open to Heaven, he will not fail to do it by other Means, which is, by the Magistery of other men, (Faith comes by hearing) that is, by his Church, which he hath commanded us to hear; unless you will have all men pretend with Swinckfeldians to be guided by enthusiasms, or extraordinary lights, motions, or rapts. And so this very Providence of God, in permitting some scripture to be lost, or questioned for a time, 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 us the necessity and sufficiency of a visible Living Guide. 53. But then, say you, How is the Church an infallible keeper of scripture, which hath suffered some books to be lost? It is easy for us to answer; that the Church shall always be infallibly directed to perform whatsoever is necessary for salvation of men; and if any books of scripture have been 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) affirms, and endeavours to prove, that by scripture alone the Church may be restored, though she were supposed, totally to have failed▪ which conceit of his, though it be but a mere chimaera, since it appears by experience, that scripture alone is not sufficient to produce unity in faith, nor can instruct us in all Points necessary to 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 perpetual Direction of the Holy Ghost, as she did for years and Ages before scripture was written. But this answer cannot serve Protestants, who on the one side cannot be assured, that in those scriptures which were lost, there were not contained some fundamental or necessary Points of Faith; and on the other, are resolved not to make use of the inestimable benefit, which they might receive by submitting to God's Church, and commit a grievous sin by rejecting her Authority: and so God giving most sufficient and certain means, you remain inexcusable for not making use of them. Thus than the infallibility of God's Church in being a keeper of scripture, consists not in this, that no scripture be lost which God in his holy Providence supplies by another Means, but that she be so directed, as no scripture, or other Means 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 receive for Canonical 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 lose (for, what is once written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is for ever truly said to have been so written) but only we may come to know that which we did not know, or to be assured of that whereof some doubted. Which yet you must not so understand, as if the whole Church did ever doubt of those books, and much less that she did deny, or ever could make any Declaration or Definition that they were not Canonical, but only that they having been once commended to the Church by the Apostles, some particular persons afterward fell into some doubt concerning them; as many have questioned or denied divers Articles of Faith delivered to Christians by the Apostles; and the Church, in due time, even by occasion of such doubt or denial, declared, the Truth's contrary to those heresies, to be arricles of Faith, and those books of which some doubted, to be Canonical. Thus Potter (Pag: 216.) teaches, that the Ap●●●●es Creed as it was further opened, and explained in some parts, (by occasion if emergent heresies) in the other Catholic Creeds of Nice, Conseantmople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Athanasius, contains all fundamental Points of Faith. And therefore you are injuriours to God's Church in saying; her omission to teach for some ages as an Article of Faith that such books were Canonical, nay, degrading them from the number of articles of Faith, and putting them among disputable problems was surely not very laudable For, the church did not omit to declare in due time, and upon fit or necessary occasion, that they were Canonical, as the ancient Council of Nice (of whose Creed your Church of England (Art. 8.) sayeth it ought throughly to be received, and believed) by occasion of the damnable heresy of Arius, with whom you and your Socinians agree, declared that Christ was Consubstantial to his Father. Neither did the Church ever degrade from an article of Faith, or put among disputable problems, any Part of true Canonical scripture, and therefore Cha: Ma: said truly, that never any book or syllable defined by the church for Canonical, was questioned or rejected for apocryphal, either by the church, or any Catholic to whom such a Definition was sufficiently notified; though Heretics will still be doing what pride and obstinacy may suggest. In the mean time, you will find, that I have already answered what you object P. 142. N. 29 against the said 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, and say; He (Cham Ma:) were best ru●b his forehead hard, and say, &c: But our answer is very obvious, that the book of Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom, the Epistle of S. James, and to the Heb: (which you mention) were approved by the Apostles for Canonical: yet that did not hinder, but afterward some might be ignorant, or doubt of them, as many did of divers principal articles delivered by the Apostles, and then the church had reason and authority to declare the matter. You cite S. Gregory (L 9 Moral: C. 13.) calling the books of Maccabees not Canonical. S. Gregory hath no such thing in the chapter which you cite but (L. 19 C. 17.) which you might have learned out of Potter, who (P. 259.) citys the same authority as I have set it down. This I would not have noted, if you had not taxed your adversary for missing a citation in one place, whereas he citeth the same thing right in another as I note hereafter. 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 thereof, and yet make still the same Objection which Potter did. These than be the words of Charity Maintained: what you allege out of S. Gergory, is easily answered for he doth not call the Maccabees, not Canonical, as if he would exclude them from the number of true, and divine scriptures, but because they were not in the canon of the Jews, or in that which he had at hand when he wrote his first draught of his commentaries upon Job. For he was at that time the Pope's Nuntius, or Legate at Constantinople, and the Greek Rhapsody. of African Canons had untruly put out of the Canon the two Books of the Maccabees, though they were receyved in Africa as Canonical, by the Decree of the African Council. And therefore you were ill advised, under colour of commending Pope Gregory, (but indeed the more to impugn us by his authority) to write Greg: M: or Magnus, the great, whereas he was no Pope, but only Deacon, when he first wrote those commentaries upon Job. Thus far Cha: Ma: 55. As for your demand: whether before Sixtus Quintus his time our Church had a defined canon of scripture, or not? I Answer: We had the same Canon then, which we have now, and which the sacred council of Trent hath set down, (Sess: 4. decreto de Canonicis scriptures.) The church had always the same Canon, that is, she never declared by any decree, any books to be Apocryphal at one time, which she admitted for Canonical at another. One Council may omit or not mention some book which another specifyes, but can never declare it to be Apocryphal, or not canonical; to which contrariety, only private persons are obnoxious. But yet although our church had not set do wne the canon of scripture, it is very improper for you to object; then was your Church surely a most vigilant keeper of scripture, that for (1500) years had not defined what was scripture, and what was not. For, do not Protestants till this day disagree about the canon of scripture, and so are not able to define what is scripture, and what is not▪ yea they positively deny some books to be scripture, which others of them affirm to be Canonical. It is true, I cannot properly say, that, for (1500) years they have not defined any canon, because they have no such ancient being. But I must say; although they should last (1500) millions of years, they would never be able to set down any certain canon, as not having any assured ground, for which one part should yield to another. And still I must be putting you in mind of the difference between catholics and Protestants, that we who believe the church to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, are sure that she cannot deceive us, with false or Apocryphal scriptures, nor obtrude any false canon; whereas you, who rely upon scripture alone, and yet can have no certainty what is the true canon, (as appears both by your mutual disagreements, and because you have no certain infallible means to know what is true scripture) can have no security for your faith, in regard you have no certainty concerning the total rule thereof. 56. Your other Demand, (Whether our Canon of scripture was that which was set forth by Sixtus, or that set forth by Clement, or a third, different from both?) If it be well considered, is, to speak truth, exotic; for to the demand what books be Canonical, the direct and right Answer is, that such or such books belong to the Canon of scripture; for example, Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, four Gospels, &c: which Demand and Answer abstract from that other question, about different Translations, and Editions. And who will ask, whether the Septuagint, or Aquila, or Luther, Calvin, Beza, Castalio, set out a different Canon of scripture, I mean, for those books in which they agree that they are Canonical, and yet it is notorious that their Translations of the same canon, or books of scripture, are most different? Or, if you will have these demands to be all one, seeing both the Hebrew and Greek books are corrupted, as Calvin confesses, your answer to your own Demand must be, that no true canon of scripture can be found; and then woe be to Protestants, whose Faith and salvation depends upon the true canon of scripture. If your Demand be about the Edition of Sixtus and Clement; I Answer, They set forth no different canon, but the selfsame; to wit, those books which before their time made up the canon of scripture. And, as for the edition of Sixtus, it is no good dealing in you to do in this, as you did concerning the words of S. Gregory, concealing the large and clear Answer which Cha: Ma: gave to the same objection (made by Potter) (Part. 2. Chap. 6. N. 3.) where by the Authentical Testimonies of Persons above all exception he shown that the Decree of Sixtus about, his edition, was never promulgated; that he himself had declared divers things to have crept in, which needed a second review; and that the whole work should be reexamined, 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 upon scripture alone, and yet cannot possibly have any certainty what scripture is true or corrupted, by the Hebrew or Greek Texts, which they acknowledge to be corrupted, and much less by Translations of Protestants, who bitterly accuse one another of most grievous errors in their Translations, as Cha: Ma: hath showed (Part. 1. Chap. 2. N. 16.) which I wish the Reader, for the Eternal good of his soul, to peruse, and reflect, that if scripture be the only Rule of his Faith, and yet he either is sure that some Texts thereof are corrupted, or at least not sure but that they are so, he cannot be obliged to believe any one Text, nor can in Matters of Eternity rely thereon: as in case divers meats were set before me, whereof I know some to be poisonous, and I have no means to discern them from the other, I cannot safely touch any one of them. But the matter passes in a far different manner with us catholics, as I have often said, and must often repeat: We being sure that the church can neither approve any least corruption, nor ground upon it any Point of Faith: and so a corruption in a true book of Scripture, can no more hurt us, then false Scriptures or Gospels which were vented in the primitive church, could prejudice those Christians. Nevertheless, although, as I said, the church cannot approve any false translation, yet she is not obliged at all times to declare one for Authentical, till all circumstances considered, there appear some necessity thereof; as the sacred Council of Trent did, by occasion of a multitude of pernicious Translations, published by modern Heretics in favour of their 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 again necessary to receive the Decrees of Counsels, and to have recourse to them, by reason of divers interpretations of scripture which now reign. 58. To that which you say in the same (N. 29.) suppose it had been true, that never any Book after reteyving had been Questioned, how had this been a sign that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost? In what mood or figure would this Conclusion follow out of these Premises? Certainly your flying to such poor signs, as these are, is to me a great sign, that you labour with penury of better Arguments: and that, thus to catch at shadows and bulrushes, is a shrewd sign of a sinking cause. 59 Answer What greater sign of particular Assistance, and as it were a Determination to Truth from some higher cause, than consent and constancy of many therein, while we see others change, altar, and contradict one another (and even the same man become contrary to himself) who yet in all other humane respects have the same occasion, ability, and reason, of such consent and constancy? Tertullian, (Prescript: Chap: 28.) saith truly: Among many events there is not one issue, the error of the churches must needs have varied. But that which among many is found to be one, is not mistaken, but delivered. And the experience we have of the many, great, and endless differences of Protestants about the canon of scripture, and interpretation thereof, is a very great argument, that the church, which never altars nor disagrees from herself, is guided by a superior, infallible, Divine Spirit; as Christians among other inducements, to believe that scripture is the word of God, allege the perfect coherence of one part thereof with another. 60. Before I pass to your next Error; I must ask a Question about what you deliver (Pag: 141. N. 28.) where, speaking of some Books 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 certain books 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 books of scripture, though they had been proposed before, is to propose new Revelations or Definitions of the Apostles: But, as I said heretofore, it is no news for you to utter contradictions. 61. A seventh Error plainly destructive both of scripture, and all Christianity, is taken out of your Doctrine (of which I have spoken heretofore) 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 together, may give occasion to doubt, whether those Miracles, whereby the Scriptute was confirmed, were not to delude men; and so we can have 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 overthrows all proof that can be taken from Miracles, for confirmation either that scripture is the word of God, or that other articles of Christian Faith are true. Thus you writ: For my part I profess, if the Doctrine of the scripture were not as good, and as sit to come from the fountain of goodness, as the Miracles by which it was confirmed, were great, I should want one main pillar for my Faith, and for want of it, I fear 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, unless men do also interpose their own judgement, that the things in themselves are such? which is not to believe the Miracles, or God speaking and testifying by them, but to subject the Testimony of God to the judgement of men? whereas, contrarily, we ought to judge such things to be good, because they are so testified, and not believe, that Testimony to be true, because in our judgement, independently of that Testimony, the things are good in themselves; which were to vary our belief of God's Testimony, according as we may chance to alter our judgement at different times, and upon divers reasons which may present themselves to our vnderstanding. Do not you in divers places pretend, that this reason is above all other? God says so, therefore it is true: and further do you not say? (Pag. 144. N. 31.) If you be so infallible, as the Apostles were, show it as the Apostles did. They went forth (says S. Mark) and preached every where, the Lord working with them and confirming their words with signs following. It is impossible, that God should lie: and that the Eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falsehood, or of such Doctrine, as is partly true and partly false. The Apostles Doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was entirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. If the testimony of God be with you above all reason, and that by signs or Miracles the Eternal Truth sets his hand and seal 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 judgement the doctrine of the scripture were not as good, as the Miracles by which it was confirmed, were great? Or what could it avail us to prove our doctrine by Miracles, as the Apostles did, if the belief of those Points so proved, must stand to the mercy of your judgement, which as I said, may vary upon divers occasions: and yet this diversity of judgement you must, according to this your doctrine, follow, even against any point, though confirmed by Miracle. It is therefore clear; That in your Principles, you can have no certainty of the truth of scripture, nor of the contents threrof, although it were supposed, that it alone did expressly and inparticular contain all Points necessary to be believed. 63. Your 8. Error consists in this: that, beside what I have said already in your second and third Error (that you impeach the certainty of scripture, by taking away universal infallibility from the Apostles who wrote it, and for whose Authority we believe it.) I find you do the same in other places. You say (P. 144. N. 30.) The infallibility of the Church depends upon the infallibility of the Apostles, and besides, this dependence 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 error. Change the terms, and say: The infallibility of the Apostles depended ●pon the infallibility of our Saviour, and this dependence 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 error; 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 (and 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 time in an error repugnant to a revealed truth notwitstanding our Saviour's express warrant and injunction to go and preach to all Nations. Christ then, according to you, did not deprive the Apostles of freewill, though he proposed externally the Object, and gave them sufficient Grace to perform his will. For if he had moved them to Truth by way of necessity, they could not have 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 believe amiss, or not set down faithfully in writing, what they believed? Which is also confirmed by what you writ (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 therefore having given us means sufficient for our direction, and power sufficient to make, use of these means, he will not constrain or necessitate us to make us of these means. For, that were to cross the end of our Creation, which was to be glorified by our free Obedience: Whereas necessity and freedom cannot stand together. And afterward: If God should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity (the Obedience of Faith &c:) he could no more require it of us, 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 mere necessity they must do, and cannot choose (And Pag: 88 N. 96.) you say expressly, That God cannot necessitate men to believe aright, without taking away their free will in believing and in professing their belief. It seems by these words, you hold the Apostles to have had freewill in believing, preaching, and writing, and that therefore 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 err. 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 error; even contrary to the truth, which is taught him only sufficiently, and not irresistibly, so that he may learn it, if he will, not so that he must and shall, whether he will or no. Now, who can ascertain 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 deprive the Apostles of freewill, because otherwise God could no more require of them as their duty to believe, 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 error 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, than the Holy Ghost may move, and the Church may not be moved. And why do you not say, if the Holy Ghosts moving the Apostles to believe, 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 believe, preach, and writ errors. 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 Doctors follow her infallible direction? why doth she thus put her cand●e under a bushel, and keep her Talon of interpreting Scripture infallibly, thus long wrapped up in napkins? why sets sheenot forth Infallible Commentaries or Fxpositions upon all the Bible? Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians, that Scripture should be interpreted? It is blasphemous to say so. The scripture itself tells us, all scripture is profitable. And the scripture is not so much the words as the sense. 65. In answer to this your weak and irreligious discourse, I return the like Demands, whether the Apostles were infallibly directed concerning the true meaning or interpretation of scripture, as they were for writing it? I suppose you will say, they were so directed. Why then did they put their candle under a bushel, and keep their Talon of interpreting Scripture infallibly, wrapped up in napkins? Why did they not set forth infallible commentaries, or expositions upon all the bible? Was it because this would not have been profitable for Christians, that scripture should be interpreted? It is blasphemous to say so. The Scripture itself tells us, all scripture is profitable. And scripture is not so much the words, as the sense. And when you have made these Demands against the Apostles, you may in like manner ascend higher, and ask, why divers parts of scripture were so written, as they not only need expositions, but that no mortal man can understand them? When you have 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 fail to interpret, declare, and perform all that is necessary in order to the Eternal salvation of souls, and in particular will supply by Tradition, or other Means, what is obscure, or is not contained in Scripture. But than you ask again (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 else we learn by this example of the Apostles, that God may move resistibly, and yet infallibly for attainng that End, which by means 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 have no certainty, that Scripture doth not contain errors. But whatsoever you think, the truth is, that God wants not power to move men resistibly, and yet infallibly, by divers ways known to his infinite Wisdom. I would gladly know, whether you believe, that God can possibly be sure to make any one a Saint, or a repentant sinner, or can promise perseverance to the end. I suppose you will not deny but that he can: and then seeing 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 freedom of our will, and infallibility in God's foresight. I said, that if freewill in the Church cannot stand with infallibility, neither could it consist with infallibility in the Apostles. Now I add: your Arguments prove 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 Consubstantial 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 give for Him, must be given for his Apostles, and his Church. You say (Pag: 86. N. 63.) God gave the Wise-men a star to lead them to Christ, but he did not necessitate them, to follow the guidance of this star: that was left to their liberty. But this instance makes against yourself; for no man dare deny but that God so moved those Wisemen as he was sure they would follow the star, and perform that for which he presented it to their eyes, and gave light to their understandings, and efficacy to their wills; that so our Saviour Christ might be preached to the Gentiles, by their means, as S. Leo (serm: 1. de Epiphan.) saith; Dedit aspicientibus intellectum, qui praestitit signum: & quod fecit intelligi, fecit inquiri. He who gave the sign, gave them also light to understand it, and what he made to be understood, he made to be sought after: where the word fecit, signify, that God did move them effectually, and yet we have no necessity, to say that they were necessitated. 66. By what we have said, is answered a wild discourse, which you make (Pag. 87. N. 95.) about the Pope's calling the Council of Trent; which I have showed might be done both freely, and yet proceed from the infallible foreknowledge and Motion of the Holy Ghost. And what you say of the Pope, may be applied against the Apostles and other Canonical 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 together with the Church, you impugn the infallibility of Christ and the Apostles, and consequently of their Writings, which forces me to repeat, that, according to your Doctrine scripture cannot be any Rule of Divine Faith, and much less a sufficient Rule, though it were supposed to contain all necessary Points of Faith. 68 Your 9 and most capital Error remains; whereby you deprive scripture of certainty and infallibility, and make both it and the contents of it, less credible, than the Books of profane Authors, and things related in them: I mean your Assertion, that we know Scripture to be the word of God, not by an infallible private Spirit, or by undoubted criteria, or signs appearing in Scripture itself, as some other Protestants teach; nor by the Church as infallibly assisted by the Direction of the Holy Ghost, according to the Doctrine of Catholics: but from the Tradition of all Churches, merely as they are an Aggregation of men subject to Error, and as their consent is derived to us by History and humane Tradition. The private Spirit (which must be tried by Scripture, and not Scripture by it) and those pretended manifest signs found in Scripture itself, are mere fopperyes, confuted, by the experience of so many learned men, who heretofore have 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 known from itself alone, but by some extrinsecall Authority, you need not pro●e, for no wise man denies it. And therefore whereas Protestants teach, that the Church is only an inducement, and not the certain ground, for which we believe Scripture, you in opposition to them, affirm that those criteria or signs are only Inducements; but that the ground to receyve Scripture, is the Church, in the manner I have declared. Out of these considerations, you choose rather to be sacrilegious, then seem to be simple, or no wise man; and therefore 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 Worship of God, it follows that we must receive Scripture from the Church of God, acknowledged to be infallible. This being once granted, we must further say, that Her infallibility is universal in all things concerning matters of Faith and Religion: neither is it possible to bring some other infallible Authority, to prove the Church infallible in this Point alone. For, to omit other Reasons, you must prove that Authority, by some other, and so without end. In the mean time, we have reason to bless our good God, who hath forced Protestants, at length to see the foolery of a private spirit, and the vanity of manifest signs pretended to be found evidently in scripture; and so come either to acknowledge the infallibility of God's church, or with Atheists and enemies of Christian Religion, to deny the infallibility of Christian Faith, by settling the truth thereof upon 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, wherein the Scripture itself is the subject of the Question, which cannot be determined but by natural Reason, the only Principle beside scripture, which is common to Christians. Behold the Analysis or Resolution of Christian Faith into humane fallible, natural Reason! But now let us show the falsehood of this your Error. 69. First, it is an argument of no small weight, that both in this devise itself you contradict all Catholics and Protestants, and in the consequence which inavoidably follows it, namely, that the assent of Christian Faith is fallible; wherein, as I said, you contradict all Christians, and all men who profess any Religion. 70. 2. Christian Faith is infallible as I have proved; which it could not be, if the ground on which it relies were fallible. 71. 3. It hath been proved that Christian Faith is the Gift of God, and in all occasions requires the supernatural 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 natural reason, as we have heard you profess, and upon that ground affirm, that Christian Faith is only probable, not raising our Understanding above the probability of humane inducements: wherein it differs from the judicium credibilitatis of which Catholic Divines speak, and by which practicè and effectually we judge the Articles of Christian Faith, to deserve, and require of us, under pain of damnation, a most certain infallible belief, beyond all precedent Motives of credibility, which judgement being the beginning of supernatural Faith, and of itself an Act of great difficulty to humane Reason, requires a particular assistance of Divine Grace. 72. 4. If we receive Scripture upon this your fallible Tradition, we shall have greater certainty of the Books of profane Authors, that they were written by such men, than that the Books of Scripture, were written by those whom we believe to have written them; because the Tradition is more full for those, than for these, as I said above; as also there are many works of those men, which never any Christian or other called in question, whereas scarcely any Book of Scripture hath not been questioned, even by Christians; as they are despised and denied by all the enemies of Christian Religion. It will also follow, for the like reason, that we are more certain that there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England, Caesar, Pompey etc. Then that there was such a man as Jesus Christ, as I have showed already: and yet what Christian can hear such blasphemies, without just indignation, and horror? 73. 5. Protestants are wont to object, that we give greater credit to men, than to the word of God; because we believe the scripture for the authority of God's church. This is of no force against us, who believe the church to be infallibly assisted, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, and that God speaks by the church, and consequently that the voice of the church is the voice of God; and so we believe the word of God, for the authority and Testimony of God; as all must acknowledge the Primitive of Christians, to have receyved and believed the Scriptures, upon 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 unanswerable; because you ground the belief of scripture, and all the contents thereof, upon men, expressly as they are fallible, and subject to Error, whose words you must believe more than the word of God, according to your own Rule, (Pag. 377. N. 59) we must be surerof the Proof, than of the thing proved, otherwise it is no Proof. 74. This Argument I confirm 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 Error, it may be reform by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles Doctrine and scripture. But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we have recourse, for the discovering and correcting their error? Again, there is not so much strength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation: and if but wise men have 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 Canonical writers are the foundation of the Church; therefore their stability in Reason ought to be greater than the Churches, which is built upon them. Again, a dependent infallibility cannot be so certain as that on which it depends: But the infallibility of the Church depends upon the infallibility of the Apostles, as the straightness of the thing regulated, upon the streigness of the Rule. Therefore the Church's infallibility is not so certain 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 Apocryphal Scripture be obtruded for Canonical, it may be reform by comparing it with universal Tradition; But if universal Tradition hath erred in delivering the Canon of Scripture, to whom or to what, shall we have recourse for the discovering, and correcting that error of proposing Apocryphal Scripture? Again, if but wise men have the ordering of a building, they will make it a much surer thing, that the Foundation shall not fail the building, then that the building shall not fall from the foundation. Now, universal Tradition of men subject to error, is to you the Foundation of Scripture; therefore their authority in (your) reason ought to be greater than the Scripture which is built upon them. Again a dependent infallibility cannot be so certain, as that on which it depends; But the infallibility of Scripture, depends upon the infallibility of universal Tradition of men: Therefore the Scriptures infallibility is not so certain as that of the Tradition of men; that is, neither the one, nor the other is certain. What say you to this application, and to your Doctrine which forces us to make it? But this application rests not here. For, as you have told us, that the infallibility of the Apostles must be greater than that of the Church; so for the same reasons, the infallibility of the Church must be, to us, greater than that of the Apostles, yea of Christ himself, seeing you believe the Apostles and our Saviour Christ to have been infallible, and to have proved their infallibility with Miracles, only by your universal Tradition of the Church, which therefore is the foundation on which your belief concerning the Apostles and our Saviour, depends; and consequently their infallibility is not so certain to you, as the fallible Tradition of men. For, we must examine and measure our knwledg of the words and works 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 straightness of the thing regulated, upon the straightness of the Rule. 75. 6. Before we believe 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 seem very strong and convincing, that the Mysteries contained in Scripture, are contrary to the said only Principle, Reason; besides the difficultyes, which to the same Reason seem great and insuperable, in answering seeming contradictions of Scripture to itself; which are so many, and so intricate, as certainly they will appear to any judicious Man, unanswerable, without submission to some infallible Authority, as a support for humane Reason against the strength of them; as appears by the great pains taken by learned men, and the difference of ways in satisfying such difficultyes; and finally by a true confession, that when they have done their uttermost, the last and best refuge is to captivate their understanding to the Obedience of Faith; and one thing is most certain and evident, that Protestants reject divers Books of Scripture receyved by Catholics for Canonical, upon incomparably less seeming difficultyes, or contradictions, and falsehoods, then are found in those Books of Scripture, which both Catholics and Protestants admit: Now (say I) in this case, what shall Reason do, being left to itself, without any Authority beside itself? The Motives and humane Testimonies of your tradition produced in favour of Christianity, are only probable, as you affirm; Arguments to the contrary, seem convincing, and such as have been held for Principles, among the best Philosophers, as I shown upon another occasion; and therefore Christian Religion is accounted foolishness to the Gentiles; (and we treat of the time before one is a Christian) who then will oblige such a Man, being in possession of his Liberty, to accept under pain of damnation, an obligation positively to believe, and to live according to the Rules of Christian Faith, only upon 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, aught to be prevalent against all seeming evidence of reason. For, you teach, that true Miracles may be wrought to delude men; for avoiding of which delusion, it may seem wisdom, and safest, to stick close to the Principles of Reason, whereby though he may chance to be deceyved, yet he cannot be accounted rash, imprudent, or inexcusable. 2. you must suppose, that Miracles and all other Motives end in probability alone (for, if they surpass probability, you grant Christian Faith to be infallible) and then the difficulty still remains; how one can be obliged to embrace mere probabilities, and such, as you confess are not able to raise our mind to a higher and more firm assent than they themselves are, against, and as I may say, in despite of seeming evidence of Reason opposed only by such probabilities. 3. This Answer is not pertinent to our present Question, which is not to treat, how far 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 Catholics believe Gods church to be: but we speak of Miracles, wrought in great distance of time and place from us, commended and believed only by your fallible tradition, which therefore leaves this doubt, whether one can be obliged to prefer fallible humane tradition, confessedly insufficient to cause a certain assent, before seeming evidence and certainty of natural Reason. And it seems easy to demonstrate that Protestants, if they will be constant to their own assertions and proceed, must yield to that seeming evidence of Reason. For, it cannot be denied without great obstinacy and impudence, that in all ages there have been wrought frequent, great, and evident Miracles, by the professors of the Catholic Religion; recorded by men, eminent for learning, wisdom, and Sanctity, who would be credited in whatsoever case or cause of highest concernment, and testified not by one, or a few, or many single persons, but by whole Communityes, Cities, and Countries: by means of which Miracles, Infidels have been, 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, Protestant's will not conceive themselves obliged to believe, that such Miracles were wrought, or that those Articles of our Faith, in confirmation whereof they were wrought, are true. And why? Because they seem contrary to natural Reason; as the Real Presence, Transubstantiation &c: them they reject Catholic Doctrines, confirmed by Miracles, in regard of that seeming contrariety to Reason, how can they pretend Reason, to receive Scripture, and the contents thereof; for example the Misteryes of the B. Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Creation of all things out of nothing, the Resurrection of the Dead, and other such Articles which they make show to believe, and are no less, yea much more seeming contrary to reason then those doctrines of Catholics which they reject? Wherefore, our final Conclusion must be, that to deny an infallible Authority both to propose Scripture and deliver infallible Traditions, is to undermine and overthrew Christian Religion. 77. 7. Since Scripture may be corrupted, (as some have been lost) and in particular Protestants affirm, even the Vulgate Translation, which anciently was used in the Church, to be corrupted, as also the Greek and Hebrew, your Tradition cannot secure us, what in particular is, or is not corruted, because it delivers only as it were in gross, such or such Books, but cannot with certainty inform us of all corruptions,, additions, varieties, and alterations, as occasion shall require. Thus, some, both Catholics and Protestanis teach, that Additions have been made even to Pentateuch; others assirme the same of the Books of Josue, Kings, and Hieremy; and the like Additions might, and perhaps have been made to other Books, 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 Catholic Doctrines (which they untruly call errors) crept in by little and little (as you also say Pag: 91. N. 101.) so what certainty can they have, that corruptions in Scriptures, yea whole Apocryphal Books, may not in time have gained the repute of being Canonical? As for corruptions in Scripture, you speak dangerously in saying (Pag: 141. N. 27.) As for the infallibility of the Church it is so far 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 likely to have been corrupted (if it had been possible) then any other, and made to speak as they do, for the advantage of those men, whose ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their authority. And afterward: I would ask, how shall I be assured, that the Scriptures are incorrupted in these places (which arealledged to prove the infallibility of the Church?) seeing it is possible, and not altogether improbable, that these men, which desire to be thought infallible, when they had the government of all things in their own hands, may have altered them for their purpose. Do not these words give scope for the enemies of Christian Religion, to object that we cannot be certain of any Text of Scripture, whether or no it be incorrupted? For, as you say, it is not altogether improbable, that we have altered some places for our purpose, of proving the infallibility of the Church; so you may say, we have done the same in other places to prove other Points of our belief: and the like may be said of all others, who teach different Doctrines; that they will incline to corrupt Scripture, in favour of their several Sects. Neither can we have any certainty, whether this which may be done, hath not been practised, and so all comes to be uncertain, unless 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, whereby we prove the in fallibility of the Church, that they are as subject to corruption as any other, and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been possible) then any other, a●d made to speak as they do, for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their authority. You say, that those places are more likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible; which signify, that it was not possible: and yet a few lines after, you affirm that it is possible, and not altogether improbable, that we have done it. Is the same thing not possible, and possible, or, not possible and yet not improbable? Beside, you say, it is more likely those places which we allege for the infallibility of the Church, have been corrupted (if it had been possible) than any other, and made to speak as they do for our advantage: Wherein you confess that actually some places of Scripture speak for our advantage; and then who are you, to control God's Word, and speak against those, for whose advantage it speaks? 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, unless we know certainly what places be incorrupted. Now I ask: whether it was possible for us to corrupt those places which we bring to prove the infallibility of the Church, or it was not possible? If it were not possible; than you wrong us, in saying, that it is both possible, and not altogether improbable, that we have done it. If it be possible then as I said, what certainty have you, that we have not done it, seeing you say, it is both possible, and not improbable that we have done so? Or what certainty can you have, that others have not done the like in other Texts for defence of their several Doctrines? 79. Lastly. You still go upon a false ground; that we cannot prove the Church, otherwise then by Scripture; whereas we must first prove Scripture, by the Church. 80. 8. How uncertain your kind of Tradition is, appears by your own words, which are such, as no enemy of Christian Religion could have uttered more to the prejudice thereof, than you do (Pag: 90. N. 101.) Where in the Person of a member of the Protestant Church of England: you speak to Catholics in this manner: You have wronged so exceedingly his (Christ's) Miracles and his Doctrine, by forging so evidently so many false Miracles for the confirmation of your new Doctrine; which might give us just occasion, had we no other assurance of them but your Authority, to suspect the true ones. (what Authority have you but that of the Roman Church and such as agreed with Her?) Who with forging so many false Stories, and false Authors, have taken a fair way to make the Faith of all Stories Questionable; if we had no other ground for our belief of them but your Authority; who have brought in Doctrines plainly and directly contrary to that which, you confess to be the word of Christ (o portentous untruth!) 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 believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention, taught by some cunning Impostors, only to make themselves rich and powerful; (I pray you, what good Christians were there before Luther, except Roman Catholics, and such as agreed with them? And therefore what difference can you put between good Christians and Roman Catholics?) Who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remay ne uncorrupted. For if you take this Authority upon you, upon the six Ages last passed; how shall we know, that the Church of that time, did not usurp the same Authority upon the Authors of the six last Ages before them; and so upwards till we come to Chrict himself? Whose questioned Doctrines, none of them came from the fountain of Apostolic Tradition, but have insinuated themselves into the streams, 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 far from being a sufficient Foundation for our belief in Christ, that it is in sundry regards a dangerous temptation against it; why should I not much rather conclude, seeing we receive not the knowledge of Christ and Scriptures from the Church of Rome, neither from her must we take his Doctrine, or the Interpretation of Scripture. 81. Now let the Reader consider. 1. If the Roman Church, and all those Churches which agreed with Her before Luther, that is, all true Churches of Christ, be such a thing as he describes, what can they contribute to make up any part of his universal Tradition? Yea she must needs make it suspected for false, fallacious, fraudulent. And then what Tradition will remain creditable, or even considerable? The Greek Church agreed, and at this day agrees with Catholics against Protestants, as is manifest and confessed by learned Protestants, for which cause they did directly refuse to join with Luther and his Associates. The Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Aethiopians, or Abyssines, either hold the Doctrine of Eutyches, which even Protestants detest as a damnable Heresy, or use 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 Maintained C 5. from N. 48. to 54. were he will find clearly demonstrated what I have now said of the Greek, and other Churches. Since than you blast the credit of the Roman Church, and such as agreed with Her against Protestants, there will remain no Tradition at all. 82. 2. You say: That we by forging Miracles Might give just occasion, had you no assurance of them but our Authority, to suspect the true ones, of Christ; and by forging so many false stories, and false Authors, have taken a fair way to make the faith of all Stories 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 have no assurance of Miracles, and ground for belief of Stories, but by our Testimony or Tradition, as I have clearly proved; What will be the Conclusion, but this; That there is just occasion to suspect true Miracles of Christ, and Question all Stories? Behold the effect of your Tradition! This I confirm out of what you say in your Answer to the Direction, where having first set down your nynth Motive to be a Catholic, in these words: Because the Protestant cause is now, and hath been from the beginning, maintained with gross falsifications, and calumnies: whereof their prime controversy Writers, are notoriously, and in high degree guilty: Your answer is this (N. 43.) To the 9 Iliacoes intra muros peccatur & extra. Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants. Which though it be very false, as it touches us, and not so much as offered to be proved by you, yet it clearly destroys your own kind of Tradition. For if both Protestants and Catholics be notoriously, and in high degree guilty of gross falsifications in these times, why may not the same be said to Heretics in former Ages according to your deduction from the six Ages last passed, to the six last Ages before them, and upward till we come to Christ himself? And so neither Catholics, nor Protestants need now, corrupt Authors or Histories, but will find it done to their hands; unless your meaning be that Protestants maintain their cause with more gross falsifications and Calumnies, and are more notoriously, and in a higher degree guilty thereof than any Heretics before them. But why do I speak by Inferences, and argue by parity of reason? Since you also expressly, directly, and immediately assirme what I inferred, while you say to us: If you take this Authority upon you, upon the six Ages last; how shall we know, that the Church of that time, did not usurp the same Authority vpon the Authors of the six last Ages before them; and so upwards till we come to Christ himself? In which words you say much more than I inferrd, that by your reason we could not be sure but that as Protestants are, by your own confession, notoriously guilty of gross falsifications in a high degree, so former heretics have been. For you speak even of the Church, and ask, how shall we know, that the Church of that time did not Usurp the same Authority (of corrupting) upon the Authors of the last six Ages before them, and so upwards till &c: And this will appear more easy to have been done in the times nearest our Saviour and the Apostles, when fewer Authors did write, in so much as some Protestants affirm S. Justine to be the first whose Writings are not spurious, and that helived Aᵒ 140. And if the first writings and stories be once corrupted, what certainty can we have 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 feigned Authors, corrupted Stories, forged Miracles, Apocryphal Scriptures? But in this lies a mystery not known to every one, unless he have some acquaintance with Socinian Writers, who press Protestant's with this Argument: If the Church might err, and is believed by you to have erred in the Ages next precedent to Luther, and so upwards from Age to Age, till the first six hundred years after Christ, (which you say were pure) what certainty or solid Reason can you allege, why the Church might not also err in those years, since you do not hold Her to have been Infallible? An Argument unanswerable by Protestants, who there for must either admit the Church in all Ages to be infallible, or else can have no certainty, that she did not err, or corrupt, or permitted the corruption of Authors and Stories, and Scriptures, and forging of Miracles in any Age far from, or near 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 believe that Christian Religion was a humane invention, taught by some cunning Impostors to make themselves rich and powerful, if there were no difference between the Christian and Roman Church: I beseech you, either inform us, 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 suspicion? Or else give us leave to infer, 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 prove a perpetual visible Church distinct from yours. If this be not necessary, it remains, 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 believe that Christian Religion is a humane invention, 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 mere 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 us, (Whose questioned Doctrines, none of them came from the fountain of Apostolic Tradition, but have insinuated themselselves into the streams, by little, and little, some in one Age, and some in another, some more Anciently, and some more lately) makes, as I touched above, a fair way to say the same of some Books, or parcels, or clauses of Scripture, and of any Point of Christian Faith; which some insidel, or Heretic, or other enemy of Christian Religion will say, came not from the fountain of Truth, but have insinuated themselves, into the streams, by little, and little, &c: which being once granted, as possible to happen, (and we are not sure but in fact that happened, if we deny a Living watchful Guide, assisted infallibly by the Direction of the Holy Ghost) Your Tradition will also lose all credit, as being subject to the like danger of not coming from the fountain of Apostolic Tradition, but of being corrupted, forged, and having insinuated itself by little, and little &c: For if this may happen so easily to Authors, Histories, Tradition, and Doctrine, your Tradition being confessedly no other but humane History, is manifestly subject to the same exception, and total uncertainty. 85. 5. You say of us: who make a profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors: a ready course to make it justly questionable, whether any remain incorrupted. I beseech you where, or when made we profession of corrupting all sorts of Authors? Yourself know this to be a vast untruth. But if it were true, and were a ready course to make it justly questionable whether any remain incorrupted, it seems (by this your own saying) you cannot have your Tradition from any sort of Authors, which may not be justly questioned, whether or no they remain uncorrupted, And is not this a goodly Tradition to be the ground of our belief of Scripture, and all Christian Religion? May not the enemies of Christian Religion, triumph, and say we can allege 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: the Roman church is so far 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: we receive not the knowledge 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 ask, from what true Christian church could England, or any member of any church in England, receive the Scripture and knowledge of Christ, except from the Church of Rome, and such as agreed with Her? You confess it is not necessary to prove any church distinct from ours before Luther, and yet you will not deny, but it is necessary to receive the Scripture from some church, seeing you profess to believe the Scripture (which you hold for a sufficient foundation of your belief in Christ) upon the sole Authority of the church, and therefore you must take the direct negative of your conclusion, and say: seeing we receive the knowledge 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 say, and proved that they overthrew Christian Religion, we may now go forward to impugn this your Tradition. And therefore 87. 9 We have showed, how uncertain and dangerous your Tradition must needs be, by reason of corruption to which all writings have been subject, if your Assertions were true. But besides this, I will demonstrate how insufficient your Tradition must be of itself, and much more if you add the said danger of corruption. (Pag: 273. N. 56.) You allege Charity Maintained saying (Part. 1. Chap: 5. N. 17.) When Luther appeared, there were not two distinct visible true Churches, one pure, the other corrupted. For, to feign this diversity of two Churches, cannot stand with record of Histories, which are silent of any such matter; and than you reply, in these words: The ground of this is no way certain, nor here sufficiently proved. For, whereas you say, Histories are silent of any such matter, I answer, there is no necessity, that you or I should have red all Histories that may be extant of this matter, nor that all should be extant that were written, much less extant uncorrupted: especially considering your Church, which had lately all power in her hands, hath been so perniciously industrious, in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her; nor that all records should remain which were written; nor that all should be recorded which was done. Nothing could have been spoken more effectually, to prove the necessity of a Living Judge; who being once upon good and solid reason most certainly believed to be infallible, (as the Apostles proved their own infallibility) takes away all doubt, or possibility of fear, lest 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 settled in the strength of such an Authority, one may be doubting of whatsoever fallible Tradition, whether there may not be extant some Stories, Records, or Tradition, contrary to that which he follows, there being no necessity that he should have red all Stories, nor that all Histories or Records should be extant that were written; which if they had been extant, and had come to his knowledge, perhaps might have moved him to relinquish the Tradition, which now he embraceth; nor that all should be recorded which was done; and therefore he cannot tell whether something may not have been done, repugnant to that which his Tradition induces him to believe; nor finally, whether the Tradition on which he relies, hath not been corrupted, and therefore sit only to lead him into, and keep him, in error. 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 always 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 always some good Christians, who did not agree with those from whom you take your Universal Tradition, which therefore will indeed cease to be Universal? Do you not see how strongly you argue against yourself? And yet my next Reason will afford 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 Counsels by the Universal Church, to be the only way to decide Controversyes; You have these words: What way of ending controversyes can this be, when either part may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and they receive not the decree, therefore the whole Church hath not receyved it? I beseech you, apply your own 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 receive it not, therefore the whole Church hath not receyved it? By this doctrine of yours, those Heretics 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 have defended themselves, by saying, the whole Church had not receyved them, because they themselves were part of the Church, and did not receive them. According to this account, your universal 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 universal; just as you say, that Luther and his fellows departed not from the whole Church, because they did not departed from themselves, and they were part of the Church. Also (Pag: 362. N. 41.) You overthrew your own Tradition, while you writ thus: Though the constant and universal delivery of any doctrine by the Apostolic 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 men's wickedness, be contracted from its universality, and interrupted in its perpetuity; and so lose this Argument, and yet not want others to justify and support itself. For it may be one of those principles which God hath written in all men's hearts, or a conclusion evidently arising from them: It may be either contained in Scripture in express terms, or deducible from it by apparent consequence. But good Sr. seeing that the Canon of Scripture, or what Books be Canonical, is not one of those principles, which God hath written in men's hearts, nor a conclusion evidently arising from them▪ nor is contained in Scripture in express terms, or deducible from it by apparent consequence, it being your own Assertion (Pag: 69. N. 46.) that it need not to be proved, that the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from itself alone, but by some extrinsecall Authority; for no wise man denies it; it follows, that according to your Principles it can be known only by the constant and Universal 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 universally delivered by the Apostolic Churches, may through men's wickedness be contracted from its universality and interrupted in its perpetuity; So also may the Canon, or Books of Scripture (which can have no other argument to justify and support them beside Tradition) run the some hazard by the wickednenss of men, and so come to lose universality and perpetuity, and so cannot justify and support any Divine truth. And as true Books may come to lose, so false ones may, by the wickedness of men, come to gain authority, unless we be assured of the contrary, by the belief of an infallible Guide, which can never admit of Apocryphal, of false Scripture. 89. 11. I go forward to impugn your Tradition out of your own words (Pag: 14. N. 14.) were you say: Though you say, that Christ hath promised there shall be a perpetual visible Church; Yet you yourselves do not pretend, that he hath promised there shallbe Histories and Records always extant of the professors of it in all ages: nor that he hath any where enjoined us to read those Histories that we may be able to show them. Out of these words I argue thus: It is not sufficient for your universal Tradition of all Ages, that the whole Church of this age, for example, accept a Book for Canonical, unless it can be proved to have been receyved by all Churches of all ages, as (Pag: 152. N. 44.) You openly profess to descent from S. Austin in this: that whatsoever was practised or ●eld by the universal Church of his time; must needs have come from the Apostles; and therefore it is necessary for you to affirm, that there always must be Histories and records, which one Age is to receyve from another, to prove 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 Histories or Records always extant; nor that he hath any where enjoined us to read these Histories that we may be able to show them, and by them know the true Books of Scripture. Therefore you must grant out of your own assertion, that you have no sufficient means to know and rely upon your Tradition: especially if we consider, that unlearned men cannot possibly know, whether there be such sufficient ground, and Histories, as are necessary to make it Universal; and yet all sorts of people, must have necessary and sufficient means for the knowledge of all things necessary to salvation: which means Protestants affirm to be the Scripture alone. But with us the case is far different, who believe a Perpetual Visible Church. For, we believing that Church to be Infallible in one age, as well as in another, are not obliged to seek after histories or Records of times past (as you are for your humane fallible Tradition,) in regard the Church being always existent and Visible, is perpetually endued such Notes, Prerogatives, and Evident Signs, 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 always be Visible, as shall be declared hereafter more at large; though it be also true, that it may be evidently showed, for every age, by all kind of Witnesses, as well friends as Adversaries, that our Church hath always had a visible Being, and Prosessours of her Doctrine, with a perpetual Succession of Pastors; and this so manifestly, that it can no more be denied, than that there have been Christians ever since the time of the Apostles; yea or that there have been Emperors, Kings, Writers, Wars, or such public things, as no man can deny. But you (who ground. your belief of Scripture and all Chaistianity upon a fallible Tradition, known by Humane Histories and Records of all ages) and every one of your sect, must either despair of salvation, or else procure to be learned, and versed in all Histories: though yet even this will not preserve them from cause of despair, considering how insufficient humane Tradition is of itself, as I have proved out of your own words; and to the rest, I will add your saying (Pag: 361. N. 40.) The Fathers did urge the joint Trad 〈…〉 all the Apostelique Churcher, with one mouth and one voice, teaching the same Doctrine, not at a demonstration, but only as a very probable▪ Argument. If this be so; seeing your universal Tradition can, I hope, be no better than the joint Tradition of all the Apostolic Churches, surely you can Urge it only for a very probable, and no demonstrative Argument: especially, if we reflect, that you profess the whole universal Church before Luther's time, to have fallen into many, great, and gross errors, even concerning the Canon of Scripture, and consequently, that the first universal Tradition, from the Apostles, came to be altered and corrupted; and that your forsayd very probable Argument de facto hath failed, if your Heresy were true, that the whole Church hath fallen into error. 90. 12. (Pag: 149. N. 38.) You say: I must learn of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamental or not Fundamental. 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 God's Word, unless I be taught it? So then the church is, though not a certain foundation and proof of my Faith, yet a necessary introduction to it. I confess I have studied to find what sense you can have in these words; and can find nothing but contradictions: and finally, that your own Tradition cannot be a sufficient ground for our belief of Scripture. You say, I must learn of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamental, or not Fundamental: And in particular, That Scripture is the Word of God. I aske● what you mean 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 upon universal Tradition of all Churches, and Times from the Apostles. At least, will you have it a necessary introduction to Faith? I do not see how you can say this, seeing you profess to disallow S. Austin's saying, as we have seen a little before: That, Whatsoever was practised or held by the universal Church of his time, must needs have come from the Apostles: and how can that be a necessary introduction to Faith, which either contains a falsehood, or is confessedly subject to error, as de facto you Protestants proclaim, that the whole Church before Luther was fallen into gross, and as you speak, damnable errors: and you also say (Pag: 148. N. 36.) An Authority subject to error can be no firm or stable foundation of my belief in any thing: and if it were in any thing, than this Authority being one and the same in all proposals, I should have the same reason to believe all, that I have to believe one, and therefore must either do unreasonably, in believing any one thing, upon the sole warrant of this Authority, or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it: And therefore you expressly conclude in these words: we believe Canonical Books not upon the Authority of the present Church, but upon universal Tradition. But then, how is that true, which we have heard you say: The Church is, though not ā certain Foundation and proof of my Faith, yet a necessary introduction to it? For, seeing Scripture is the certain foundation and proof of your Faith, and that, you believe the Scripture (not for the private spirit, or other criteria, as some Protestants do, nor upon the Authority of the present Church, but) upon universal Tradition, it follows evidently, that Universal Tradition of the Church is the certain Foundation and proof of your Faith. And this you cannot deny, if you remember your own Doctrine: That men may believe, and be saved without Scripture, but not without the Church, according to your own saying: I must learn of the Church, or of some part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamental, or not Fundamental: and in particular that the Scripture is the Word of God. Therefore, say I, the Church is a more necessary, not only introduction to Faith, but also Foundation and proof of it, than 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 own Principles, must be receyved from the Church; what remains, but that the Church must be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost in all matters belonging to Religion. 91. last: to ptove how easily men may be deceyved, unless they rely upon some infallible Authority, may appear by what happened to myself, who some years ago, falling upon a wicked Book, under a false name of Dominicus Lopez Societatis Jesus, about the Authority of Scripture, and as printed in a Catholic city; it came to my mind, that in time the Book might come to be accepted for such as the title professes. My thoughts proved Prophetical. For since that time, a Catholic learned Writer citys it for such; though upon better information, he declares afterward, in the same Work, that the Book was written by an Heretic, and printed among Heretics. 92. And here I will end this Chapter, having proved divers ways, that according to several Doctrines of yours, Scripture cannot be any Rule of Faith, and much less a perfect one, although we should falsely suppose, that it did contain evidently, and in particular, all Points necessary to be believed. Wherefore it remains, that, seeing Scripture alone cannot be a sufficient and total Rule of Faith, we declare, what that Means is: Which we will endeavour to perform in the next Chapter. CHAPTER IU. A LIVING INFALLIBLE JUDGE IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING CONTROVERSYES IN MATTERS OF FAITH. THE Premises set down in the precedent Chapters, did Virtually and implicitly contain, and leave it easy for Us to infer explicitly 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 contain 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 follows necessarily, that there must always be extant a Living. Visible Judge; which can be no other, but the Church of God, against which, our B. Saviour promised, that the gates of Hell should not prevail. This Deduction is so clear, that you are forced to acknowledge it (Pag 326. N. 4.) Where you affirm, That Catholics would feign have the Doctrine (of the infallibility of Christian Faith) true, that there might be necessity of our Church's infallibility. Seeing then, both Catholics and Protestants, and all Christians firmly believe, Christian Faith to be infallible, and that this cannot be defended without believing the infallibility of the church, it follows that we must either acknowledge in Her such an infallibility, or tell Christians, that for aught they know, all that they believe of God, of Christ, of Scripture, of the Resurrection, of the Dead, of Heaven, of Hell, of all the Articles of Christian Religion, may prove no better than a dream, or an imposture, or fiction. Blessed be the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God, who destroys 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 impugn the Roman Church: his Book was approved by three chiefest men of an University, and was excessively cried up by his friends, neither did any Writer ever show greater malice against the Roman Church, than he. But with what success? No other but this: That Protestants must either deny, with this man, all Certainty of Scripture, and Christianity; or else acknowledge, not the Scripture, but the Church to be Judge of Controversyes in matters concerning religion: that is, they must either renounce Christianity, by denying the infallibility of Christian Faith, or abandon Protestancy, by condemneth their capital doctrine of the fallibility of the Church, and sufficiency of Scripture alone; and so must return to believe, and obey, the Decrees, and Definitions of General Counsels, and with them condemn the heresies which now themselves maintain. This than may be my first Argument to prove the infallibility of God's Church: and indeed this alone might suffice with Christians: yet 2. 2. This Truth of the necessity of an infallible Judge appears also, by what hath been said about Translations, Additions, Detractions Corruptions, and loss of some Scriptures, which would leave us in doubt and perplexity, unless we believed an infallible Authority, able to supply all such defects, and provide for all events. 3. 3. Out of Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 64. N. 19) There must be some Judge fit for all sorts of Persons, learned and unlearned, which the ignorant may understand, 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 have understanding, whether they be learned or unlearned. And my reason hereof is convincing and Demonstrative, because nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed. 5. This Answer is nothing to your purpose, unless you add. That nothing is necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed in Scripture: and that being added, it is a mere begging of the Question, taking that for a Proof, which is the thing controverted between us so far is your Reason from being convincing and demonstrative! You should have used a direct contrary form of Argument, and said: The Scripture is not clear in points of greatest moment, even to the learned, (as experience teaches, and I proved heretofore at large) Therefore God hath not failed to provide us of some Judge 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 therefore, unless we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose, we must conceive that they intended to speak plain, even to the capacity of the simplest; at least, touching all things necessary to be published by them, and believed by us. 7. Answer. 1. In this whole Controversy: whether the Scripture alone be a Rule of Faith without the Church, you go upon humane and topical discourses, whereas if all matters of Faith are to be tried by Scripture alone, your Arguments should be taken from it alone. For, by humane Reason, we cannot be assured of God's voluntary Decree, whether or no he will have us regulated by Scripture alone. 2. To make your discourses have any show of proof, you must still beg the Question, and suppose that there is no means left for us to learn matters of Faith, except the Scripture: and therefore you say, the Holy Ghost and the Evangelists had been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose, unless they had written to the capacity of the simplest, at least all things necessary to be published by them, and believed by us, which supposes all things necessary must needs be written, and that no such point could be delivered by the Church, though not expressed in Scripture: which is manifestly false, seeing the Evangelists wrote, while the Apostles were alive, and could deliver by word of mouth not only some, but all necessary or profitable Articles of Faith, as Christians were taught for those years before which no Scripture of the New Testament was written: and therefore I may turn the Argument upon yourself, and say; At that time, there was no necessity, that the Gospels should be written to all, yea or to any: and therefore supposing the writing of them, you cannot suppose that they were plain, even to the capacity of the simplest. If writing were so necessary for all, then enters your own Argument against yourself: How the Holy Ghost, and the Evangelists were not wanting to their duty, in differing so long to write; in so much as S. John's Gospel was not written many years after our Saviour's Ascension, that is, about the year 99 which makes it clear, 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 understand them without the help of the Church (and in this sense we may say, they rather wrote for all, than to all) otherwise all must be obliged to learn to read, yea and to be learned, and be able to judge of languages, translations &c. seeing from Scripture alone they must learn all Points necessary to salvation. Do not you teach, that if one should believe all the mysteries of Christian Religion, though he should not believe, but even reject Scripture, yet he may be saved? Therefore much more one may be saved, though he himself understand no Scripture, in case he have some other to declare it: Yea even the most learned must finally not rely upon their own abilities, or evidence of Scripture, but upon the infallible Voice and Interpretation of the Church, as we have proved. Not only the Gospels, 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 understand all Scripture. Do you think in good earnest, that none is so unlearned, as not to understand all the four Gospels? And yet you say, they did not write only for the learned, but for all men. You will say: at least they must be plain 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 contained in Scripture alone, or that we can learn them by no other means than by Scripture itself. And this your Limitation (at least) insinuates, that you cannot affirm the Gospels to be clear in all Points: and yet, as I said, and as you say, the Evangelists did not write only for the learned, but for all men. 8. You say; This (writing the Gospels) was one especial means of the preaching of the Gospel, 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 mean only, that writing the Scripture is one especial means for divulging or publishing the Gospel, I grant it, and acknowledge an infinite obligation to God, for having vouchsafed to inspire men for writing the Holy Scripture; but I deny, that writing was a necessary means of preaching the Gospel; 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 upon incident occasions: Therefore where you make this Argument; writing was one especial means of the preaching of the Gospel; and therefore must be plain, even to the capacity of the simplest; you should say the contrary: Writing was not necessary means of the preaching the Gospel; and therefore there is no necessity that it be plain to all. Yourself say (Pag: 35. N. 7.) Plain sense will teach every man, that the necessity of the means must always be measured by, and can never exceed the necessity of the end. As if eating be necessary, only that I may live, then certainly if I have no necessity to live, I have no necessity to eat. If I have no need to be at London, I have no need of a horse to carry me thither. If then, we may learn all things necessary to salvation, without a writing or Scripture (as you grant we may, and as all Christians must grant, for the time before Scripture was written) we must say; therefore it is not necessary for that end; and though it were necessary, yet it is not necessary that it be so plain, as every man may understand it by himself, seeing that end of understanding, may be compassed by another means, which is the Declaration of God's Church. And here I beseech you reflect on your own words (Pag: 79. N. 68) That it is altogether abhorrent from the goodness of God, to suffer an ignorant Layman's soul to perish meercly for being misled by an undiscernible 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 upon either above all other, or as much as any other. Therefore, say I, we are to believe, that the Church, on which we must rely, aught to be infallible, that so we may trust her without danger. For if her Authority be fallible, uncertain, and doubtful, (yea if de facto she erred) she is liable to your censure (Pag: 37. N. 20.) A doubtful and Questionable Guide is for men's direction as good as non● at all. 10. But here again (Pag: 93. and Pag: 94. N. 108.) (which is put to two §. §) You object, how shall an unlearned man amongst us know which is the true Church; or, what that Church hath decreed; seeing the Church hath not been so careful in keeping of her Decrees, but that many are lost, and many corrupted; and that even the learned among us are not agreed concerning divers things, whether they be de fide or not: Or how shall the unlearned be more capable of understanding the sense of the Decrees of the Church, than of plain Texts of Scripture; especially seeing the Decrees of divers Popes and Counsels are conceyved so obscurely, that the learned cannot agree about the sense of them, and are all written in languages which the ignorant understand not; and therefore must of necessity rely herein upon the uncertain and fallible Authority of foam particular men, who inform 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 unlearned man, or indeed any man, be assured of the certainty of any Decree, seeing a Council 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 ordained Priest, and this again depends upon the Ordainers secret Intention, and also upon his having the Episcopal Character? 11. This is the sum of what not only you, but other Protestants are wont to object, and it is the utmost of your endeavours: But will be easily answered, by laying this ground: That both in this, and other Points, we must distinguish, between the certainty of a general ground, or foundation, and the certainty of that particular means, by which we actuate, or apply to particular occasions that General ground, which, unless it be first believed with certainty, cannot have strength, to move us to undertake with resolution and perseverance, matters 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 have the ordering of the building, they will make it much a sever thing, that the foundition shall not fail the building, then that the building shall not fall from the Foundation. 12. This Truth will better be understood by Examples. That we may prudently yield Obedience, Piety, and Observance, (and be obliged to do so) towards Magistrates, Parents, and Superious, it is sufficient, that we have a moral and prudent practical judgement, that they are such; because that judgement is sufficient, to apply the general ground, that Obedience, Piety, &c: are due to Magistrates, Parents &c: But if that General ground were not certain, as an evident dictamen of Reason, but only probable, men would not think themselves obliged to such duties, but rather would stand for their liberty, by pleading possession, and following that other dictamen of Reason, Equity, and Justice, Meliorest conditio possidentis. To Hope for the reward promised to the just after this life it is sufficient, that we have good Reason, though not certainty, that we are just, or in the state of Grace: But if this general Principle, The just shall be eternally rewarded, were not certain, few I fear, would be persuaded to prefer a future uncertainty, 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 error even contrary to the truth which is taught him, if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly: But if one were not certain of this general ground, That God of his part, teaches every one sufficiently, men would not easily think themselves obliged, or would be induced to use their best endeavours to learn things, which they believe cannot be learned, unless God alone teach them sufficiently, if they had no certainty, that they can hope for any such teaching. And to come nearer to our purpose: If one do verily believe some particular Point to be evidently contained in Scripture: who can oblige him to believe that Point with absolute certainty, unless he first believe 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) unless Scripture were not only believed to be the word of God, but that indeed it be so. For, Infallibility of Assent, signify two things: the one that de facto the thing for the present is true: the other, that it depends on such constant Causes or Principles, as cannot in any possible case, or occasion, consist with falsehood, or uncertainty, which could not be verified, unless 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 speak truth, yet in some other it might fail, and cause us to fall into some error. But if we make another kind of supposition, That one is told by his Pastor, or Prelate (whom he might prudently believe) that some Point is contained in Scripture which indeed is so contained, and he believe it as contained in that book which he believes to be the word of God, and 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 instructor or proposer be not Infallible: because he believes upon a ground which both is believed to be Infallible, and is such indeed; to wit, the word of God; who therefore will not deny his supernatural concourse necessary to every true act of Divine Faith: Otherwise, in the ordinary course, there would be left no means for the Faith, and salvation of unlearned persons; from whom, God exacts no more, than that they proceed prudently, according to the measure of their several capacities, and use such diligence, as men ought to use 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 certain, that every one of those thousands whom S. Peter converted, did hear every sentence he spoke, but might believe some by relation of others who stood near. 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 have 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 etc. What I have exemplifyed in Scripture, may be applied to Divine Revelation in general, which could not be the Formal Object, or Motive of our Faith, if it colud bear witness to any least untruth; and yet we may believe by an Act of true Faith, that which we only prudently believe that God hath revealed, if indeed he hath revealed it. And so, the first ground which I laid, is true; that the Foundation upon which we finally rely, must be absolutely certain, whatsoever the particular means by which such Foundation, or Principle is applied, 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 unlearned Catholics, have a firm Foundation, upon which they build their Faith: and that Protestants, whether they be learned or unlearned, have no such ground. 15. First: we have proved that Scripture doth not contain all necessary Points of Faith: and therefore for those necessary Points which are not to be found in Scripture, they must either be ignorant of them, or err by denying them, or else believe them upon the Authority of the Church, which they expressly and obstinately hold to be fallible: and so we may apply against them, your own words (Pag: 148. N. 36.) where you expressly grant, that unless the Church be Infallible in all things, we cannot rationally believe her for her own sake, and upon her own word and Authority in any thing. For, an Authority subject to error, can be no firm or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing: and if it were in any thing, than this Authority being one and the same in all proposals, I should have the same reason to believe all, that I have to believe one; and therefore must either do unreasonably, in believing any one thing, upon the sole warrant of this Authority, or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it. Out of which words it follows, that you cannot believe any one Point of Faith for the Authority of the Church, and that it were unreasonable in you to do so; and an unreasonable and imprudent Act cannot be supernatural, or be pleasing to God, nor proceed from the special motion of the Holy Ghost, as every Act of Divine Faith must do. Therefore, since Protestants rely upon Scripture alone, which contains not all necessary Points of Faith, the best learned amongst them must be destitute of something necessary to salvation, and then what shall we say of the unlearned, who depend on their teachers? But it is clear, that Catholics learned and unlearned, who believe the infallibility of the church, may learn of Her, and by tradition, or the unwritten word of God, what is not particularly contained in his written word, or Scripture. 16. But here, as in divers other occasions, I must unexpectedly, yet necessarily, make some stay. Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chap: 3. N. 15. Pag: 94.) hath these words: If I doubt of any one parcel of Scripture, receyved for such, I may doubt of all: and thence by the same parity I infer, That if we did doubt of the Church's infallibility in some Points, we could not believe Her in any one, and so not in propounding Canonical Books, or any other Points Fundamental or not Fundamental. 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 believe you in any thing. Nay you yourself must not believe yourself in any thing, because you know that you are not infallible in all things. Indeed if you had said, we could not rationally believe her for herowne sake, and upon her own word and Authority in any thing, I should willingly grant the consequence. which you prove in the next words (alleged by me above) For, an authority subject to error, can be no firm or stable foundation of my belief in any thing &c: 17. Answer. You have no reason to cavil at the words of Charity Maintained, which are very clear, and contain no more than what we have heard yourself expressly teaching, That an Authority subject to error can be no firm Foundation of my belief in, any thing. And therefore He said expressly, if we did doubt of the Church's infallibility in some Points, we could not believe her in any one. Where you see, he speaks of Infallibility, which is destroyed by any one lest error; and consequently cannot possibly be understood otherwise than of believing the Church for her own infallibility, and Authority; and being so understood, yourself profess willingly to grant the consequence, which is the very same which Charity Maintained did infer; and even out of the very same reason which you did give. Besides, he speaks expressly of Scripture and the Church, in order to the proposing of Canonical Scripture, or believing other Points of Faith, Fundamental or not Fundamental, which require a Proposer universally infallible, as yourself grant. And so (to answer your Objection) no body can believe me, nor I can believe myself, for my own authority, in matters which require certainty and Infallibility, (as all Points of Faith do) unless I were believed to be infallible in all things, for the same reason, which we have heard yourself give; that an Authority subject ●o error can be no firm Foundation of my belief in any thing But, you say, there is no consequence in this Argument, (which you say is like to mine) the devil is not infallible; therefore if he says, there is one God, I cannot believe him. No Geometrician is infallible in all things, therefore not in the things which he demonstrates. N. N. is not infallible in all things, therefore he may not believe, that he wrote a Book, entitled Charity Maintained. 18. Answer. It is very true, that I cannot believe the Devil, with an infallible Assent, for his own Authority, in saying, there is one God, unless I believe him to be infallible. But if he prove what he says, by some evident demonstration, I do not believe 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 always infallibility in our Assent, requires infallibility in the Ground or Motive thereof: As de facto the Devil himself knows with an infallible internal Assent, yea, and as I may say, feels to his cost, that there is a God; but whether you can believe him with certainty, when exteriorly he utters that, or any other Point, merely for his Authority, is nothing to our purpose, though it seems, you can best dive into his intentions, by what you say in your Answer to your Eight Motive, where you say; The Devil might persuade Luther from the Mass, hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it; or that others would make his dissuasion from it, an Argument for it, (as we see Papists do, you should add, and as yourself did before you were a Papist) and be afraid of following Luther, as confessing himself to have been persuaded by the Devil. This your strange answer to your own Motive I do not confute in this occasion, it having been done already in a little Treatise, entitled Heantomachta, or Mr. Chillingworth against himself; and in an other called, Motives Maintained. Certainly you have not observed that saying; We must not belly the Devil. 19 The same Answer I give to your example of a Geometritian, whom in those things which he demonstrates, we do not believe for his Authority, but for evidence of his demonstration, which is infallible; neither did the Author of Charity Maintained believe for his own fallible Authority, that he hath written such a Book, but by evidence and infallibility offence. And here, you should remember your own words, (Pag: 325. N. 2.) Faith is not knowledge, no more than three is four, but eminently contained in it, so that he that knows, believes, and something more, but he that believes, many times does not know; nay if he doth barely and merely believe, he doth never know. Therefore, according to your own Doctrine, he who assents in virtue of some evident demonstration, doth know, and not believe for the Authority of another. And who sees not, that if I believe a thing for some other reason, and not for the Authority of him, who affirms it. I cannot be said to believe it for his Authority, but I assent to it for that other reason: Yea if we consider the matter well, when I know one affirms a thing, and yet do not believe it for his Authority, but for some other Motive or reason, I may be said, of the two, rather to disbelieve then believe him, at least I do not believe him at all (for that Point) but either some other Person, or for some other Reason. Wherefore You do but trifle when (Pag: 138. N. 36.) You speak to Charity Maintained in these words: You say we cannot believe (the Church) in propounding Canonical Books, (if the Church be not universally infallible) if you mean still (as you must do, unless you play the Sophister) not upon her own Authority, I grant it: For we believe Canonical Books not upon the Authority of the present Church, but upon universal Tradition. If you mean, not at all, and that with reason, we cannot believe these Bockes to be Canonical, which the Church proposes, I deny it. In these words, I say, you do but trifle. For, you know that Charity Maintained did speak of believing the Church upon her own Authority, which is so true, that you say he must mean so unless he play the Sophister, and what then shall we think, you play, in imputing to him such a sense, whereas 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, believe the Church, when I chance to believe that which she proposes, if I believe it, for some other reason, and not for her Authority; and therefore it is a contradiction in you to say, I believe the Church at all, when I believe for some other reason, as I have declared above. You say (Pag: 35. N. 7.) I grant that the means to decide Controversyes in Faith and Religion, must be endued with an universal 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 believe, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful assent. Is not this the very same thing which Charity Maintain said? If now, one should turn your own words against yourself, and say; Indeed if you had said, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful Assent in any thing for its own sake, I should willingly grant your consequence; But if you mean, not at all, I deny it: Would you not say, that he did▪ but cavil? Remember then; Quod tibi non vis fieri, alteri ne seceris. But let us go forward. 20. The second difference between learned and unlearned Catholics, 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 therefore Protestants have no certain Means or Rule to know the true sense of Scripture, to them it cannot be Scripture, nor the infallible Word of God. But I have proved, that Protestants have no such certain Means, or Rule: Therefore we must infer, that by pretending to follow Scripture alone, they do not rely upon any certain 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 unlearned, who depend on them, cannot possibly be resolved into any infallible ground; whereas the unlearned amongst Catholics, 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 have no certainty, and much less the unlearned; and so their Faith is not builded upon any stable Foundation, and consequently the uncertaintyes which we object to you, touch the very general grounds of your Faith, and not only the particular means by which they are applied to every one. 21. 3. I appeal to the conscience of every unpartial man, desirous to save his soul, whether in Prudence, one ought not to prefer the Roman Church, and those who agree with Her, before any company of Sectaryes; who disagreeing among themselves, cannot all believe 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 than they. Of which differences the unlearned amongst them being not able to judge, they cannot prudently join themselves rather to one than another Sect; as for the same reason they being not learned, cannot prudently conceive themselves able to convince us out of Scripture, no more than they can judge, what company of Sectaryes is to be preferred before all other, seeing the learned Protestants cannot convince one another; especially if we remember, that they assign for understanding the sense of Scripture, many Requisites and Rules, which exceed the capacity of the unlearned, who therefore must resolve either to be of no Religion at all, which no man endued with the common light of reason, can resolve, or else must judge that they may safely, and ought constantly to embrace the Catholic Roman Religion: which if they do, their proceeding being prudent, God will not be wanting to afford them his supernatural 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 certain and infallible, but yet such as, all circumstances considered, are prudent, and the best that occur in such an occasion. Beside; No Man of ordinary discretion, knowledge, and prudence, though otherwise unlearned, can choose but have heard, that the Roman Religion is very ancient, that divers learned Protestants think very well of it, and of those who die in that profession, yea expressly grant, that divers whom they believe to be Saints in Heaven, did live and die in our Religion: they see evidently, that we agree among ourselves; that great Miracles have been wrought in our Church, with the happy success of converting Infidels to Christian Religion: Whereas contrarily, for every one of the said considerations, it is evident, that Protestants cannot challenge them; yea, they profess, that before Luther, the world was in darkness, and that their reformation began with him; that we hold, no Heretic, whether Protestant, or other, can be saved without repentance, and yet, as I said, that the most learned among Protestants grant Us salvation; that they have no peace among themselves, nor can ever hope for it: that they profess Miracles to have 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 Gospel to Nations, for their conversion: these things, I say, and divers other, are so manifest, that the unlearned cannot be ignorant of them, and therefore 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 have 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 uncertainty doth nothing at all touch Catholics, learned or unlearned, who unanimously believe Christian Faith to be absolutely certain and infallible. Out of these grounds I come now to answer your Objections. 23. You ask, (Pag: 93. N. 108.) How shall an unlearned 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 believe the Scripture for the Authority of the Church, as for the chief ground of such your belief: and other Protestants acknowledge the Church to be an inducement to believe it. How then do you, and they, independently of Scripture, or before they believe Scripture, know which of all the Societyes of Christians is indeed the Church? The Church was before Scripture, and might still have continued without Scripture: in which respect there cannot want evident Notes, to distinguish between the true and false Church, even for the unlearned, if they will apply themselves to cooperate with the occasions, and Grace which Goind his Goodness never fails 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 Marks of God's Church are so patent, that every one may evidently see them, upon condition that he be not negligent in an affair of so great moment. 2. I have showed already, that the Means by which, infallible grounds of Faith are applied to every one, need not be of themselves infallible; as also I have declared the difference between unlearned Catholics 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 fail to make Decrees, and conserve or renew, and communicate them to faithful people, as need shall require. A thing not hard to be done in the Catholic Church, professing obedience to one supreme Head, the Vicar of Christ, and Successor to S. Peter, who by subordinate Prelates and Pastors, can easily and effectually convey Decrees, Ordinations, and Laws to all sorts of Persons. 26. You say (Pag: 94. N. 108.) even the learned among us are not agreed concerning divers things, whether they be de fide, or not. But this can apport no prejudice to the unlearned, yea nor to the learned, so that they all stand prepared and resolved, to believe and obey what the Church shall determine; which as I have often said, she will be sure to do, when it shall be necessary for the good of souls; and to do it so as her voice shall be clearly heard, and understood, by one, or more, decrees, and declarations? Thus we see General Counsels have declared divers Points of Faith, after they began to be controverted by some, and found means to notify them to Catholics of all sorts. I beseech you, what Christians after the ancient and sacred Council of Nice, were ignorant that Arius, and is followers, your progenitors, were condemned for denying our Saviour Christ to be the Son of God, true God and equal to his Father? Or what Catholic in these latter times is ignorant, that Heretics hold, and have been condemned for holding divers Errors, contrary to the belief and practice of the Catholic Church; as making the sign of the Cross; The Real presence, and Adoration of our Saviour Christ in the B. Sacrament: the Sacrifice of the Mass, Prayers to the Saints in Heaven, and for the Souls in Purgatory; Worshipping of Images: Seven Sacraments: observing of set feasts, and fasts: vow of Chastity for Persons in holy Orders, and Religious men and women, and the like. 27. You urge (Pag: 94. N. 108.) How shall an unlearned man be more capable of understanding the sense of Decrees made by the Church, then of plain Texts of Scripture? especially seeing the Decrees of divers Popes and Counsels 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 understand not, and therefore must of necessity rely herein upon the uncertain and fallible authority of some particular men who inform them that there is such a decree. And if the decrees were translated into vulgar languages, why the translatours should not be as fallible as you say the translatours of scripture are, who can possibly imagine? 28. Answer. Take away an infallible living Judge, 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 been proved heretofore, and appears by the experience of your great and irremediable disagreements; and is manifest of itself, because you have no certain Rule when the Scripture is to be taken in a literal, figurative, moral &c: sense: which difficulty ceases in the Decrees of the Church: both because it is known upon what occasion, and against what Enours the Church makes ●her Decrees (as all know upon what occasion, and against whom, the sacred Council of Trent was gathered) and thereby it is easy to understand the decrees for the Negative or affirmative part, at least for the substance, and the things chief intended in them: or if any doubt should remain, the Church can declare herself; which Scripture can never do. And although the Decrees of Popes and Counsels, are not conceyved so obscurely as you would make men falsely believe, yet all obscurity is easily cleared, by some further declaration. As for languages in which they are written, it is Latin: a language known not only to the learned but to many also whom we need not reckon among the learned: and they who understand not Larine, will find so great uniformity among all those who understand that Language, that they cannot remain uncertain concerning the meaning of those Decrees, though they be not translated into vulgar Languages; or if they were so translated either the translations would be found totally to agree, or else it were easy to be informed, which of them did mistake, seeing innumerable persons do perfectly understand Latin: and Besides, as I said, it is evidently known upon 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: seeing you have no certain Rule to know the sense thereof, and Translations of Protestants are manifestly seen to be contrary one to another, the most learned among you can have no certainty (yea, I dare say, that greater learning will occasion greatest multiplicity of doubts and perplexityes, unless there be acknowledged an infallible Living Judge) and much less can the unleaned have certainty sufficient to exercise a true Act of Divine Faith. More of this matter may be seen in Charity Maintained (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 Ecclesiastical Decrees. For, every word of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Ghost: One Text may have divers literal senses intended by the same Holy Spirit: We are ignorant what was the scope of Canonical Writers for every particular Chapter, or Text: Every Reason given in holy Scripture, is a matter of Faith: The style and Majesty thereof surpasses humane wit and manner of writing: All which considerations make the Translations of Scripture, both more difficult, and more dangerous, than those of Ecclesiastical Definitions or Decrees, in which the fore said Reasons have not place, as appears by what I said even now. 29. But you would prove (Pag: 94. N. 109.) that no man can be certain of the Church's 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 unless he were baptised, and baptised he was not unless the Minister had due intention: So likewise he cannot be a true Pope, unless he were rightly ordained Priest; and that again depends upon the Ordainers secret intention, and also upon his having the Episcopal Character. All which things, depend upon so many uncertain suppositions, that no humane judgement can possibly be resolved in them. I conclude therefore, that not the learnedst man amongst you all, no not the Pope himself, can according to the grounds you go upon, have any certainty, that any Decree of any Council is good and valid, and consequently, not any assurance that it is indeed the Decree of a Council. 30. Answer: These very Objections Potter made, and are answered by Charity Maintained; (Part: 2. Chap: 5. N 31.) but you take no notice thereof) That your suppositions are never to be admitted; but we are sure, that whosoever in a time free from Schism, is once accepted by the Church for a true Pope, is such indeed. Yet if you will be making such untrue suppositions, that the Pope did enter by Simony, or wanted Baptism, or true Ordination, God would never permit him to define any thing in prejudice of the Church. Neither are the occasions of Defining matters of Faith always urgent; as we see the Church for the space of three hundred years after the Apostles, passed without any General Council. 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 universal Church to be obliged to believe a falsehood, or an uncertain thing, as all are obliged to believe the Definition of one who is accepted for true Pope. See more of this, in the said place of Charity Maintained. 31. But now, Good Sr. I beseech you reflect, that in being so eager against us, you have degraded (or rather have denied) your Bishops, Priests, and the whole Pretended mock-Hierarchy of the Protestant Church in England, which hitherto hath been ambitious, to prove 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 ways of lapsing and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome, I believe will be very inclinable to think, 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 up the R●man Hierarchy, there are not twenty tr●●. If this be so; if the fountain be so troubled, or rather none at all, what certainty can there be in the stream which flowed from Rome to England? if of many millyons among us, there are not twenty true Priests, (if we keep 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 conform to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England? Neither can you answer, that your Arguments proceed only against the ground we go on, that intention of the Minister is necessary to the validity of Sacraments. For, if indeed it be not necessary, than you must grant, that those uncertaintyes which you exaggerate against our Baptism, Ordination &c: are but imaginary fears; as yourself say (Pag: 358.) That some men's persuasion that there is no such thing, as an indelible Character, hinders them not from having it, if there be any such thing, no more than a man's persuasion that be has not taken Physic, or Poison, will make him not to have taken it, if he has. (Though, by your leave, this instance of Physic &c: is not convincing; because they who deny an indelible Character, may perhaps out of an obstinate love to their Heresy, and hatred against our Doctrine, resolve and intent rather not to receive the Sacrament, than to admit any thought that there is such a thing as a Character, which you call a creature of our own making, a fancy of our o●ne Imagination, and then really they receive 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 have destroyed your own Hierarchy, while you impugn ours, upon this ground, that we hold the intention of the Minister to be necessary. Nay, seeing not only all Catholics, but some learned Protestants also, teach intention to be necessary, at least, you cannot be sure that it is not so; and then again, you must either renounce your own Objections, or undermine, and make doubtful your Hierarchy: Which you must do also in another respect. For, though you take our Catholic Doctrine about the necessity of intention, as one ground of uncertainty, for the validity of our Sacraments; yet you mention other Points, which are common to us and Protestants, as, that determinate Matter and Form are essential to Sacraments; and your English Church in particular, in the Administration of Baptism, expressly saith: If they which bring the infants to the Church, do make such uncertain answers to the Priests questions, as that it cannot appear, that the child was baptised with water, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (which are essential parts of Baptism) then let the Priest baptise it in Form above writte●, concerning Public Baptism &c: And (Pag: 76. N. 64.) You say; To be certain that one is a Priest, he must know, first, that he was baptised with due Matter; 2. With the due Form of words (which he canno● know, unless he were both present and attentive.) And (N. 65.) He must undertake to know, that the Bishop which ordained him Prtest, ordained him completely with due Matter, and Form. And (N. 60.) He must undertake 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 until he comes to the very fountain of Priesthoed, For, take any one in the whole train and Sum session of Ordainers, and suppose 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 upon the Matter or Form) he could not give a true, but only a supposed Priesthood; and they that receyve it of him, and again, they that derive it from them, can give 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 equivocal Fathers beget only equivocal Sons. Thus you. And it is Gods just judgment, that the certainty, and validity of Protestants Ordinations, and their whole Hierarchy of Bishops should be made questionable, seeing they could endure the publishing of your Book wherein the certainty of Christian Faith is denied. 31. But now, to say something by this occasion, concerning the Intention in administration of Sacraments, whatsoever you are pleased to say, yet in true judgement, there is less danger of any defect in that behalf, than in any other, for example, of Matter or Form; which may be vitiated, both by the malice of the Minister, and also against his will; whereas a due Intention is wholly in his own power, and will, and, as I may say, costs him nothing; and we suppose him to be a man, not a Devil, delighting in the damnation of Souls, 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 Form. For, seeing the validity of the Sacrament, doth not oblige him to speak with a voice, loud and audible to others, he may pretend to speak the form secretly, and yet either say nothing at all, and so omit the Form, or else say something else: or if he pronounce most of the words audibly, he may with an under-voyce interpose some words, which will destroy the Form, as if, for example, he say openly, I Baptise the, and secretly put in this word (Not) in the Name of the Father &c: And this he may be induced to do by your doctrine (that, Intention is not necessary and so, the want of it will not invalidate the Sacrament) and therefore 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● form, or both. 32. Besides, as I began to say above, some chief learned Protestants, teach the necessity of Intention in the Ministers of Sacraments. (Pag: 326. N. 3.) you style 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 Book of Ecclesiastical Policy, (Sect: 58.) saith: That in as much as Sacraments are Actions religious and mystical, which nature they have not unless they proceed from a serious meaning: and what every man's private mind is, as we cannot know, so neither are we bound to examine: therefore always in these cases the known inof the Church generally doth suffice; and where the contrary is not manifest, we may presume that he which outwardly doth the work, hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God. Consider, how this your Divine of great Authority affirms, that Sacraments cannot be so much as religious and mystical actions (which are Attributes essential to Sacraments) unless they proceed from a serious meaning; and that this meaning hath no difficulty; seeing it suffices that one intent to exercise that Action as Christians are wont to do; which intention; we may in a manner say a man cannot choose but have. For, though he were a Pagan, yet if he intended to do what Christians are wont to do 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 have any ground, to think that it is possible to convince them of fall should in this matter: and therefore this uncertainty, which you impute to us, falls heavy upon yourself, and other Protestants, if indeed they administer Sacraments without such an intention as all Catholics and some chief Protestants believe to be necessary. 33. Now as for the Doctrine itself of Catholics about the necessity of Intention; it is so reasonable and clear, that it is strange, any can call it in Question. For, I beseech you, if a madman, or a fool, are a drunken man, or an infant, or one in his sleep, should chance to cast water upon one, and pronounce the Form, should such an one be baptised; or if he were baptised already, were such an action of such persons, a rebaptisation? If one with purpose, only to learn the manner of baptising, did practise the pronouncing the words, and applying the Matter, should that be true Baptism? 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 knowledge there should chance to be bread and wine with in a moral distance, should he consecrate the Eucharist? Or, are men obliged never to pronounce those words in such occasions as I specified lest 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, moral, free Action, which madmen, infants etc. nor even men in their wits, cannot exercise, when they are ignorant of the moral presence of the matter that is to be consecrated: but that it is not necessary, besides the substance of a moral Action, to intent also to administer a Sacrament: I answer; first, This answer evacuates the ground of Heretics, who say, That intention is not necessary, because the words receive force only from the Will and Institution of God, and therefore must not depend upon the morality of that Action, which morality depends upon the intention of him that pronounces the words: to wit that he intent to do it seriously, and not in jest, or by way only of pronouncing the material words without their signification: and so the salvation of souls must depend upon a secret intention, of which we cannot be sure, as men exercise many indeliberate actions without any virtual or actual intention. 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 baptised, and for devotion say, I wash the in the name of the Father, &c: as men are want to say, I do this in God's name; because according to this answer, it would be repabtization. 2. I answer: if one be supposed to intent the performance of the Sacramental action for the substance, no reason can be imagined, why he should not intent to do 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 Form, either can be no cause which can move him at least not to intent that which there are wont to do in the like case: and to think the contrary may easily or almost possibly happen, argues only in you an excessive desire to impugn, by whatsoever arguments, our Catholic Doctrine. 34. And here I must of necessity make a diversion rather than a digression, and answer some Points, to which you refer yourself in this (Pag: 94. N. 109.) in these words: All which things, as I have formally proved, de●end upon so many uncertain suppositions, that no human judgement can possibly be resolved in them. For, although what you pretend to have been formally proved, hath been 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 overthrown, all the superstructions which you and other Protestants are wont to make, may evidently appear false and ruinous, and so fall to the ground. 35. Cha: Ma: (Part. 1. Chap: 2. N. 16.) having showed out of Brierly, (Tract: 1. Sect: 10. subd: 4.) joined 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 (respective) as corrupting the Word of God (and the Authors, as Antichrists and deceivers) Wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost, sacrilegious, ethnical, making the Text of the Gospel to leap up and down, using violence to the letter of the Gospel, adding to the Text, changing the Text, deserving either to be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the Text, and in the margin, or else utterly to be prohibited; in the Translation of the Psalms, in addition, substraction, and alteration, differing from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least, and such, as is doubtful whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereto, depraving the sense, obscuring the truth, deceiving the ignorant, in many places detorting the Scripture from the right sense, (and that the Translators show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth) taking away from the Text, adding to the Text, to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost etc. This I say Charity Maintained having showed, adds these words: Let Protestants consider duly these Points: Salvation cannot be hoped for without the true Faith: Faith according to them, relies upon 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 certain, than a most certain possibility to err, and no greater evidency of truth, than that it is evident some of them embrace falsehood, by reason of their contrary Translations. What then remaineth, but that truth, Faith, Salvation, and all, must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground? How many poor souls are lamentably seduced, while from preaching Ministers, they admire a multitude of Texts of Divine Scripture, but are indeed the false translations, and corruptions of erring men? Let them therefore, if they will be assured, of true Scriptures, fly to the always visible Church, against which the gates of Hell can never so far prevail, as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures. 87. Against these words (Pag: 76. N. 63.) you speak in this manner: This Objection, though it may seem to do you great service for the present; yet I fear, you will repent the time that ever you urged it against us as a fault, that we make men's salvation depend upon uncertaintyes. For the Objection returns upon you many ways. 38. Answer. I assure you, Charity Maintained hath never felt, nor ever will feel, any such repentance, as you mention, having never been taught to repent himself of a good deed, as it seems, you confess, his to have been, while you say to him: I fear you will repent the time. Do you fear He will repent? the Object of fear is some apprehended evil; and therefore your fear 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 laid, That more certainty and strength is required in the general Principles of Faith, than in that particular means, or Act, whereby such Principles are applied in Practice to the Person of every one; as for example, we are certain by Revelation certitudine Fidei, that he who persevers unto the end shall be saved: but that every particular person doth perform on his part, what is requisite to persever, we have no revelation nor absolute certainty, God having so disposed, that we ought to work our salvation with fear and trembling. The further reason whereof may be; because if the general Grounds or Means appointed by God, were in themselves fallible and uncertain: this want would be ascribed to God himself, as if he had not given us sufficient Means for our salvation; but for the particular application made by free Acts of men, or by Means of second causes, all the defect is imputed to them alone, and in no wise to God, who on his part hath provided Means certain and sufficient, as will appear hereafter, by answering all the particulars which you allege whereby it will be found, that no uncertainty can be derived from the general 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 brief consideration; That it is one thing to treat, whether or no, a Sacrament be valid; and an other; whether the defect of an invalid Sacrament. may be supplied by some other Means: For example, Intention of the Ministers is universally necessary to the validity of a Sacrament (in the sense I have declared) but whether, or when, or to whom, Sacraments be so necessary, that they cannot be supplied by other Means, must be resolved, by descending to particular cases, as will appear after a while, and will show 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 have touched, and answered already; as that we cannot be sure that he who absolves the Penitent, or consecrates the Eucharist, is a true Priest: because we cannot know that he or any other was baptised with due Matter, Form, and Intention, and for the like reasons, we are not certain, that the Bishop who ordained him, was a true Bishop. But, as I said, these uncertaintyes 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 concern only the application of those general Grounds to particular occasions, for which we have no Revelation, or certainty of Faith, which assures us only, that there shall be always in God's Church a succession of bishops and Priests; and this is enough to show that your Objections are but exaggerations, and panic fears, as if of many millions, not twenty should be true Priests: 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 Counsels, because we are not certain that the Pope who must confirm them is true Pope: you should say the contrary; There have been true general Counsels: Therefore they who celebrated them were true Bishops, and the Pope who confirmed them was true Pope. Thus also we are sure true Priests have Power to absolve repentent sinners, and true Bishops, to or deign 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 virtue of Hope and Faith, but must with absolute certainty believe, and not only hope that his sins are forgiven. And therefore Charity Maintained did not object against Protestants (who believe Christian Faith to be absolutely infallible, and with whom He had to do, and not with such as you are) whatsoever uncertainty, but said expressly, that their Faith did rely upon an uncertain Ground, and therefore could not be infallible. And it is strange that you (N. 68) should speak to us, in this manner: I hope you will preach no more against others for making men's salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain Grounds, lest by judging others, you make yourselves and your own Church inexcusable, who are strangely guilty of this fault, above all the men and Churches of the world: I say it is strange this should be objected by you (that we make men's salvation depend upon uncertain Grounds) who profess that no Article of Christian Faith is to us certainly true, and therefore though one were certain, that he did use all means prescribed by Christian Religion for attaining salvation, yet he might miss thereof; which is plain blasphemy, putting our want of salvation, not upon any defect in men, but upon the uncertainty of Christian Religion, and of the Grounds which Almighty God hath provided for the belief thereof. You say indeed (N. 70.) that we believe the Church to be infallible, only upon prudential Motives; but this we utterly deny. For we believe this Point for the same Reason for which we believe other Articles of Christian Faith, which I have proved, (Chap: 1.) to rely upon most infallible Grounds. 40. In your (N. 71.72.) you object no more than what I have answered more than once; That, although particular men may be moved to accept Christian belief, for some immediate reason or Motive not infallible of itself, 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 have showed; and that no particular Translations can prejudice us, who submit to the Church which God will never permit to be deceyved by them. 41. For the vulgate Translation of which you speak (N. 74.75.76.77.78.79.) I need say for the present only this; That it being approved in the sacred Council of Trent, we are sure, that it cannot contain any least Point against Faith or good manners: And if by the fault of the Printers, or by any other means, any error should chance to creep into it, the Church can never make use of that error: And therefore, to treat here at large of this particular Translation. would be a labour both fruitless, and needless, divers Catholic Divines having learnedly done it, and every one may go to Bellarmin (de Uerbo Dei. Lib: 2. Cap: 9.10.11.12.13.14.) where he answers all the Objections of Heretics. 42. To exaggerate the uncertainty of Baptism, 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 administering Baptism; which yet is very untrue. For such men as these, notwithstanding their particular Errors, may seriously intent to do, as much as they can, and as Christians are wont to do; in which case, if they observe the true Matter and Form, their Errors have no influence into their intention, but are warred and laid aside as if they were not at all. For, in effect their intention is this: If Christian Religion be true, or if this Action of Baptising be of any valve, I for my part intent to make of it the most and best I can. Now this condition being true, and subsisting, it follows, that that Action will be a true baptising. This me thinks you should not deny, who were known to be an Anti-trinitarian, and Arian; and yet I conceyve you would be loath that Catholics or Protestants, should believe, that if you baptised any, the Baptism was invalid, and of necessity to be repeated. The like I say of Absolution, which may be valid though the Priest be in his mind an Heretic, upon such conditions, as I expressed concerning the Administration of Baptism. You say (N. 66.) that our Rule is, Nihil dat quod non habet: which is true in some cases; but we have no such general Rule. A Catechume, for example, or any other may validly Baptism, though himself be not Baptised. And no wonder: seeing the Minister is but the instrument of Almighty God; and it is not required that an instrument have in itself, all the perfections, conditions, or qualities, which are communicated to the effect, although in our present case the Minister immediately only applies the Matter and form, and makes his intention, all which is in his power to do, though be not Baptised. 43. You say (N. 68) That according to our Principles, When we have done as much, as God requires for our salvation, yet can we by no means be secure, but that we may have the ill luck to be damned; which is to make salvation a matter of chance, and which a man may fail of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune. 44. This I have answered already; that, to be secure is a happiness 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 above; That, it is one thing, whether or no, a Sacrament be valid, and another, whether the defect of that invalidity may be supplied by some other Means. If the nullity be of a Sacrament, the effect whereof is not necessary to salvation, it is clear, that one may be saved though the Sacrament be invalid. The difficulty is in those Sacraments, which, as Divines speak, are necessary necessitate medij, being ordained to confer the first justifying Grace, and forgive deadly sin, incompatible with Grace. Of this condition are the Sacraments of Penance, and Baptism. 45. As for the Sacrament of Penance; the Doctrine of Catholics is not subject to cast men upon perplexityes, as you pretend, nor to make salvation a matter of chance, which a man may fail 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 else. If one in state of deadly sin, were taken out of this world by a sudden death, or fall out of his wits, so unexpectedly, 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 do in those circumstances; but for his former sins, committed and never forgiven, because never repent: as if one having committed a robery, endeavour to fly, but fail of his purpose, he shall be executed for his robery, not for failing to escape, though he had not been executed, if he had not been taken in his endeavour to escape. And therefore you say very untruly, that according to our Principles, when we have done as much as God requires for our salvation, yet we may have 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 keep his commandments, which, by the assistance of his Grace, all may observe; and if we do so, we are very secure. 46. But you will say, if one have sinned, and afterward do as much as God requires of him for his salvation, he may have the ill luck to be damned. Answer. God hath provided Means sufficient on his part, and if by accident, or malice of men, they have 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 believe, or pretend to believe, that there are some Points of Faith so Fundamental, and indispensably necessary to be believed, that they are, as you say, minimum ut sic, without which none can hope for salvation. Suppose then, some Pastor or other, upon whom an unlearned man might prudently rely, and had no better means to inform himself, should malitiouslly teach him an error in those Fundamental Articles, or else say they were not necessary, and that the unlearned person believed his Pastor: I ask, what would you say in this case? Can this poor man be saved without that Faith which is indispensably necessary to Salvation? To say, he can, were to speak plain contradictoryes, that such a Faith were, and were not necessary: if he be damned, will you infer, that when one hath done as much as God requires, for his salvation, yet he is not secure, but may have the ill luck to be damned, which, say you, is to make salvation a matter of chance, and which a man may fail of, not only by an ill life, but by ill fortune. If you answer, That he is damned, not for ignorance or error caused by the malice of an other, but for his own sins, and that God had provided means, sufficient in themselves; you make good what I said, and must Answer your own chief Objection against us: Or if you answer further; That if he who failed in not believing all Fundamental Points, had in his former life and Actions cooperated with God's Grace, His Divine Goodness would not have failed, one way, or other, to give 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 own Graces, with perpetual addition of more, and greater, if we be not wanting to them, and ourselves: Which if we be, we cannot be said to have done as much as God requires of us. Deus non deest in necessarijs; and we speak in a case of necessity. If, I say, you give this Answer, you answer for us, who can easily transferr the example from one deceyved by a malicious Pastor or Teacher, to another defrauded of absolution by a wicked, or a feigned Priest; that if the Penitent had kept close to God's Inspirations, he would not have been permitted to fall upon such a Priest, or else his soul would have been raised to contrition, whereby all deadly sins are forgiven. 47. This Instance which I have urged out if your own Assertion, that there are some Points indispensably necessary to salvation, is declared by Potter (Pag: 243.) who speaks thus of Fundamental Points: these are so absolutely necessary to all Christians, for attaining the end of our Faith, that is, the salvation of our souls, that a Christian may lose 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. And to this purpose among other he citys 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 attain the knowledge of them: even as if there were one only remedy whereby a sick man could be recovered from corporal death: suppose the Patient and the Physician both were ignorant of it, the man must perish, as well not knowing it, as if being brought unto 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 sins committed, and not pardoned. The like example may be given, of one inculpably led into an error concerning Repentance, which no man denies to be necessary for remission of deadly sins; 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 time to come; or that it were sufficient to conceyve sorrow only for some humane motive, or some temporal shame, pain, or loss, or the like, which is but tristitia saeculi, and makes one rather a greater sinner, than a true Penitent; Or else, That Attrition alone is sufficient without Absolution; (which is your pernicious error) or, That it is sufficient to have sorrow for one, or a few deadly sins, 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 Error in other Points, so also in this of Repentance. Now, of men in these cases, I make the same Demand which, I made above; whether they can be saved without sufficient Repentance? And it being clear that they cannot, and yet are supposed to have been misled without any fault of theirs, your Objection turns upon yourself; how, when you have done as much as God requires for your salvation, yet can you by no means be secure, which is to make salvation a matter of chance. &c: What I have specified in the belief of Fundamental Points, and repentance, may easily be applied to other Points of practice, necessary for salvation. 48. Besides: Many Divines teach, That Contrition is necessary in Divers Occasions, whereby all his sins will be forgiven, whatsoever his Sacramental Absolution chance to be. Some say, Contrition obliges as often as deadly sins are presented to our mind ut practicè detestanda. Some, that it obliges upon festival days, because we cannot spend the day in God Allmightyes service, unless first we be contrite for our sins; Others teach, That it obliges in occasion of some public necessity, which we have reason to fear is inflicted for a punishment of our sins. Others; as often as we are to begin some heroical work, upon which the public weal, or profit of the people depends; because the forcible and powerful help of God is wont to be denied to sinners. Others, and those, men of great learning, hold. That at least all are obliged to Contrition at the true, or believed, hour of death, or in moral danger of death, (as in war, or a long and dangerous voyage by sea,) because a moral danger of death is equivalent to the last hour of death and this they understand 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 receive those Sacraments, which are called Sacramenta Vivorum, if they be guilty of some deadly sin, not confessed. Vide Amicum (To: 8. Disp: 9 Sec: 3. & 4.) I abstain from examining difference of Opinions. This is certain, that all Catholics are taught oftentimes to move themselves to contrition, and all of timorous consciences and good life endeavour to do it; and every body, at least at the hour of death; at which time Charitas propria, or Charity towards ones self, for the salvation of his soul, will as it were naturally, and effectually incline them to it, with the assistance of God's 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 us, even such an assistance as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all, not only necessary, but very profitable truth. For, God's assistance is always 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; God's assistance is always ready to promote us farther, (from attrition to Contrition) upon condition we do implore it and be not wanting to it and ourselves: 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 eternal salvation of our souls) we be not negligent to follow such directions. Will you say; God is more ready to direct our understanding for the belief of Points not necessary, but only very profitable, than he is to assist our will for exercising an Act of contrition, which is always eminently profitable, and in case of deadly sin, and invalid Absolution, absolutely necessary? To say nothing, that, as I said, great Divines hold it to be necessary at the hour of death even though the absolution be valid: At least, these considerations are more than sufficient to put every dying man (and indeed every man) in mind to implore the Divine assistance, and to endeavour the exercising an Act of Contrition. If you be resolved not to approve these Answers, let us see what better you can give, and how you will apply it to satisfy the Argument which I have made to show, that the Faith and salvation of Protestants rely upon uncertain. Grounds. 49. You say (Pag: 79. N. 68) That it is altogether as abhorrent from the goodness of God, to suffer an ignorant Layman's soul to perish, merely for being misled by an undiscernible false Translation, which was commended by the Church, which, (being of necessity to credit some in this matter) he had reason to rely upon either above all other, or as much as any other, as it is to damn a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution, which his Ghostly Father perhaps was an Atheist, and could not give him, or was a villain, and would not. 50. I answer as above: The total and proper cause of damnation of men is their sin, and not any secret defect, or invalidity in the Absolution; and therefore in your case, an unlearned man shall not be damned merely for being missled by an undiscernible 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 God's behalf, from whose Goodness it is not abhorrent to suffer a manes soul to perish for his sins; which punishment he might have permitted and inflicted in the very moment wherein they were committed: for sin of itself gives most just cause for a man to be instantly lodged in Hell; as we see many are permitted to die in the Act of some wickedness, without foresight of that just punishment hanging over their head, and therefore without possibility to repent upon the motive of being so forewarned: neither shall they be damned for their unvoluntary omission of repentance, in that case, but for the sin itself never forgiven. And this, I return to say, yourself must affirm, as I proved above. For, suppose, by such a false Translation on were misled into some error destructive, of a Fundamental point of Faith; such a man cannot be saved, and it would not be abhorrent from the Goodness of God to damn such a person; not for his error, which we suppose to be unvoluntary; but for his sins. God hath promised pardon to repentant sinners, but hath no where obliged himself to expect their leisure for repenting, or to give his efficatious Grace at their pleasure, who believing man to be what he is, infiinitely inferior 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 ugly, deformed, and malicious; a sinner, I say, firmly believing all this, and yet differing his repentance, if it were but for one moment, must blame himself alone, if he die without true repentance, and so be damned for his sins never repent. If I were not well acquainted with your custom of contradicting yourself, I should wonder that you should object to us, 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; seeing 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, seeing you affirm, true Repentance to consist, not only in hearty sorrow, and firm purpose to amend, but to require, as you say (Pag: 392. N. 8.) the mortification of the Habits of all Vices, and effectual conversion to newness of Life and Universal Obedience, and withal, that an Act of Attrition, which we say, with Priestly Absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mortification, which being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an Instant. It follows clearly out of this Doctrine, that neither Attrition, nor Contrition, can save a poor soul at the hour of death: because this your kind of Repentance, being a Work of difficulty and time, cannot be, performed in an instant; Nor can such a man be saved at that time, though he do as much as God can require of him for his salvation in those circumstances. You object against us, 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 God's Grace, to exercise an Act of Contrition, whereby he shall certainly be saved; and yet you are not afraid to tell us, that a sinner, though he do all that possibly he can, and have that most perfect kind ofsorrow, which is called Contrition, yet cannot be saved without the Mortification of the Habits of all vices, and effectual conversion to a newness of life, and Universal Obedience; Which things cannot be performed in an instant, but require long time; And than 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 accidental defect in applying such Means as Almighty God hath provided, but because, according to your Doctrine, God hath not provided sufficient Means for the salvation of a Repentant sinner at the hour of his death: Which to affirm, is no better than blasphemy, and makes men's salvation depend not only upon uncertaintyes, (as you object to us,) but also upon impossibilityes: And they shall be damned by reason of the nature of those very Means, 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 have any modesty, must be even, in your own Opinion, uncertain, as not being the common opinion of Protestants, for aught I know, you put salvation of souls upon Grounds which are in themselves (and not only in the application of them) uncertain: And the same I say of your wicked Doctrine, that Christian Faith is not infallible, which must be a source of all other uncertaintyes. 51. Having thus answered for ourselves, and retorted your Arguments, it will not be amiss to examine what you undertake to speak for us, (without any Commission) to a considering man lying on death bed, who feels or fears 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 have men's salvation depend upon no uncertaintyes) that though he verily believe that his sorrow for sins is a true sorrow, and his purpose of amendment a true purpose; yet he may deceive 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 undiscernible invalidity in his Baptism, or Ordination; and if he be none, he can do 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 vain. 52. You plead our cause so feebly and falsely, that your best fee will be, to be silenced. First, I have told you, in what sense we would have men's salvation depend upon no uncertaintyes. 2. For your case of a man lying upon death bed, who feels or fears that his repentance is but Attrition only, and not Contrition; (surely if it be attrition only, it is not Contrition) we tell him, that God's grace is never wanting if we do implore it, (which are your own words cited by me above) and not neglect to cooperate with it: If therefore he do his endeavour, God will not fail to give 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 Parson's power to damn whom he will in his Parish, as you are pleased to speak; and you speak 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 work our salvation with fear and trembling, so that neither Hope excludes a wholesome fear, nor fear a comfortable Hope; it being also most true, than we are saved by Hope, and, Hope does not confound, which signify more than rei incertae nomen, an empty name only. By this Instruction, the dying man will clearly see, that neither want of Priesthood in the party he confesses to, nor want of Intention in a true Priest, nor any other thing, beside his own freewill neglecting to cooperate with God's Grace, can damn him. We have heard your words (Pag: 277. N. 61.) That, God's assistance is always 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 seem to place God's assistance only in the external divine directions of Scripture or reason, without necessity of any internal Grace, which is direct Pelagianism) and you put the case expressly when the Penitent fears that his Repenta●●● is attrition only, and consequently, when God hath given him light to see his danger, and the necessity of contrition, and therefore, that God will not be wanting to afford his Grace, if he be not negligent to follow it; and by this truth he may prudently quiet his mind. This seems to be the Doctrine of S. Thomas (3. Part: Q. 64. a. 8. ad. 2.) granting, that, in persons endued with the use of reason, Faith and devotion supplies the defect of intention in the Minister, for justification from sin, but not for making the Sacrament valid. 53. Let us hear 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 own making and feigning; for we clear him of all) what advice, 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 have true sorrow, and that that is sufficient. But then if he should ask you, why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowful, to be a true desire, I believe you would be put to silence. Then secondly, to quiet his fears, concerning the Priest and his intention, you should tell him by my advice, that God's Goodness (which will not suffer him to damn men for not doing better than their best) will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were unavoidable. And therefore, though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: and if he gave Absolution without Intention, yet in doing so, he should hurt himselself only, and not his Penitent. 54. Answer. First; If you should tell him, that only a desire of true sorrow, is sufficient for remiffion of deadly sins, either alone, or with Sacramental Absolution, you should deceive him. For, a desire only, is of a thing which one is supposed not to have; and therefore he who only desires to have sorrow, certainly wants it; as he who only desires to find the true Faith and Religion, cannot be said to have it; though such a desire may move him to seek, and sinned, if he persever in seeking; and in like manner, he who desires true sorrow, may, to satisfy that good desire, endeavour to pass from a mere desire to the thing desired, seeing God will not be wanting on his part to afford his Grace to perfect that desire; and so persons of timorous or scrupulous consciences, may conceive they only desire true sorrow, when indeed they have it. 55. You say: If he should ask you, why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow, as well as his desire to be sorrowful, to be a true desire; I believe you would be put to silence. 56. Answer: All that you can infer from this your Objection, is, That you have put yourself to silence For you it was, and not Charity Maintained, who talked of a desire to be sorrowful, as sufficient, though it were alone. Nevertheless, if one should ask, whether you are not very sure, that you did desire to know and embrace the true Faith and way which leads to eternal happiness, I suppose you would answer, that you were absolutely certain of such a desire, and yet you cannot in your Grounds, be certain that the Faith which you embrace, is true: For than you would be certain, that Christian Faith is true, which you deny; and accordingly (Pag: 376. N. 57) You say only; This is the Religion which I have chosen, after a long deliberation, and I am verily persuaded, that I have chosen wisely. And yet certainly you thought yourself to have been more than verily persuaded of your general desire to embrace the true Faith. Therefore one may know his desire of Faith to be a true desire, and not be certain that his Faith is a true Faith; and then, why may he not be certain 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 effectual, and uneffectuall desire; This may be without the effect, or the object of it which is the thing desired, but That cannot be: For when we treat of Actions, which, all things considered, are in our power to exercise, if one effectually desire them, he will not fail to have them; For, an effectual desire, will move him to apply all means necessary, for, and to remove all impediments, against, that end. And from hence I infer, that every one may obtain true Contrition by the assistance of God's Grace, if his endeavours be not wanting: And even these your exaggerations of the great danger men may incur by want of Intention in the Minister, or defect in the Matter or Form of Baptism and Penance, may move him to procure Contrition for making all sure, and so out of your poisonous Doctrine make wholesome treacle. But you are mistaken, if you conceive the Question to be, whether or no one may know that he hath either a desire of sorrow, or sorrow, which in general one may as it were feel and know; but whether his desire and sorrow, be such as they ought to be, supernatural, effectual, universal, and from what cause they proceed; whether from the Divine, Angelical, humane, or bad Spirit, who not seldom transfigures himself into an Angel of light. 57 The second advise you would have us give concerning the Priest and his intention, is, to tell him that God's Goodness (which will not suffer him to damn men for not doing better than their best) will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were unavoidable. And therefore, though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one: And if he gave Absolution without Intention, yet in doing so, he should hurt himself only and not his Penitent. 58. Answer. We have already showed that if one do his best, God will not fail to supply all defects concerning the Priest, and his Intention, by giving him Grace to attain contrition; which is a clear and solid way of supplying the said defects, as that which you propose is not, if your meaning be, that although the Priest were no Priest, or gave Absolution without Intention, yet God would either make it a valid Sacrament immediately, as I may say, performing by himself alone the function of the Priest, or else would give the effect which the Sacrament would have conferred if it had been 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 fears of any understanding man; unless you could bring some irrefragable Authority, or convincing reason (which is impossible for you to do.) 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 move him to Contrition, you altar the case and your Opinion, and contradict your own words; That, though his Priest were indeed no Priest, yet to him he should be as if he were one. For, if the Penitent have contrition, that false Priest is not to him as if he were one, but all passes as if he had never confessed his sins to any such man, only by change of the disposition in the Penitent himself; which is the same which I have declared; and so upon the matter, your particular way of quieting such a Penitent, might rather plunge him into greater fears, and perplexityes. 59 You go forward, and object our making the salvation of infants depend of Baptism, a casual thing, and in the power of man to confer, or not confer: and our suspending the same on the Baptizers' Intention. 60. Answer. This Point concerning Baptism of infants, being especially in these times, most necessary to be understood, I hope it will not be amiss, to repeat some things of which I have spoken before. First then, To deny the necessity of Baptism for infants, was the condemned Heresy of the Pelagians, as appears out of S. Austin, (Hear: 88 and, Cont: Julian: Pelag: L: 6. C. 7.) which is so certain, 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.) Condemns Cerinthus for teaching, that a man may be saved without Baptism. And Whitak: Cont: Duraeum, L. 10 P. 883. saith: we believe and teach, That sins are forgiven, and grace conferred in Baptism, which the Manichees were accustomed to deny. 2. Learned Protestants confess, that not only S. Austin taught the necessity of Baptism for the salvation of Children (for which, Cartwright in Whitg: Def: chargeth him with absurdity) but also in General, that the Fathers were of the same mind, in so much as Musculus (in locis, Tit: de Baptismo) saith; The Father's deayed salvation to the children who died without Baptism, though their parents were faithful. In further proof whereof, we need no clearer Testimony, than that of Calvin (Instit: Lib: 4. Chap: 1●. N. 20.) saying; It was usuallmany Ages since, even almost from the beginning of the Church, that in danger of death, lay people might Baptise, if the Minister was not present in due tyme. And Bilson (Confer: at Hampton-Court) affirms; the denying of private Persons. in case of necessity to Baptism, were to cross all antiquity. Hooker also (fift Book of Ecclesiastical Policy, Sect: 62.) saith expressly, That the general and full consent of the Godly learned in all Ages, doth make for validity of Baptism, yea albeit administered in private, and even by women, (and this Doctrine he himself embraceth and defends at large,) which confessed sense of Antiquity, declares evidently the necessity of Baptism. Besides, the same man (fift Book of Ecclsiast: Politicy, Sect: 59) speaking of that Text, (Joan: 3.5.) Unless a man be borne again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven: (By which, Catholics prove the absolute necessity of Baptism) speaketh against Calvinists, thus: To hide the general consent of Antiquity, agreeing in the literal interpretation, they cunningly affirm, that certain have taken those words as meant of material water, when they know that of all the Ancient, there is not one to be named, that ever did otherwise either expound, or allege the place, then as implying external Baptism. 3. Not only Protestants confess, that the Fathers hold Baptism to be necessary for the salvation of infants, but also divers of themselves teach the same Doctrine. Bilson in his true Differens: (Part: 4. Pag: 368.) concludeth from S. Austin and the Scriptures, That if children be excluded from Baptism, they be likewise excluded from the kingdom of God; And, That without Baptism they cannot be saved, by reason Original sin is not remitted but in Baptism. Dr. Andrew's pretended Bishop of Winchester, and a great Rabbi amongst English Protestants (in his Answer to the 18. Chapter of Cardinal perron's Reply N. 18.) expressly teaches, that Baptism is necessary via ordinaria. Kemnitius, one of the most learned Protestants that ever wrote, teaches and proves out of scripture, That God doth not save us without means, but by the laver of regeneration. (Tit: 3.) And: Baptism is a mean or instrument by which is made the communication of Christ's benefits: For by Baptism Christ cleanseth and sanctifyeth. (Ephes: 5.) Yea he saith expressly The testimonies of Scripture are manifest: which, as they cannot be denied, so they ought not to be shifted of. (Ephes. 5.) Cleansing her with the laver of water in the Word. (Joan: 3.) Unless one he borne again of water etc. (Act: 22.) Be Baptised and wash away thy sins. (1. Pet: 3.) Speaknig of water &c: He saith: Baptism being of the like form (of the Ark of Noë) saveth us. And he concludes: These being most manifest tectimonyes, which expressly ascribe Efficacy 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) have understood these testimonies simply, as they sound. Behold the Doctrine of a chiefest Protestant proved out of Scripture, and confessed to be the Doctrine of the Ancient Father's interpreting Scriptures; so as our Catholic Doctrine comes to be approved by Protestants, by Scripture, and by the Ancient Fathers, and by Protestants interpreting Scripture: all which Points 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, constrain him to believe, that children dying unbaptized, are damned. The same Doctrine is delivered by Sarcerius; and by Confess: Augustana: The Protestants of Saxony, and sundry other Protestant Writers, as may be seen in the Tripl: Cord: (Chap: 20. Sect: 4. Pag 456.) 61. Now, we may reflect: First, seeing these Protestants for their Doctrine of the necessity of Baptism, rely upon Scripture, (as indeed the words of Scripture are as clear for this Point, as any can be) I would gladly know, what certain Ground you, or any man can have, that so many learned Protestants (to say nothing of all Fathers, Antiquity, and modern Catholic Writters) have erred in this their Interpretation of Scripture? Is it not your own Rule, That when men truly desirous to know the truth, and of upright meaning (I hope you believe Protestants to be such, at least, most of them) differ about the sense of Scripture, it is a sign, that such places are not evident? And seeing, we now treat of a Point, which at least, is necessary to be known, whether or no it be necessary (otherwise we cannot be assured that we want nothing necessary to salvation) it follows, that Scripture is not evident in all things necessary to be known; and therefore we must have recourse to a Living Judg. 2. Seeing so many of those whom you call brethren, teach our Catholic Doctrine, whatsoever you object against us, makes no less against them. 3. Your saying, That Baptism is a casual thing, and in the power of man to confer, (though yet many learned Protestants, hold Baptism to be necessary) is a profane speech, as if God had not a most particular Providence in disposing all things 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 Gospel (of which our Saviour spoke when he also commanded his Apostles to confer Baptism (Matth: 28.19.) which you may also say, is a casual thing, and in the power of man to do, or omit? as if God could not be sure how to order infallibly all events or effects, unless 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 concur 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 Means for infants to be baptised. So far is this matter from being a casual thing! And still we must consider, that infants dying without baptism, are deprived of salvation, not for the fault of those who omitted to Baptise them, nor properly for want of Baptism itself, but for Original sin, once contracted and never abolished, by that means and instrument, which God hath appointed for that End and Effect; as he might in his Justice have left all Mankind in their sins, without providing for them a Redeemer, according to the proceeding which he held with the apostating Angels; and therefore this Doctrine, That children dying without Baptism, cannot be saved, implies no cruelty, absurdity, or strangeness, to those who believe other Points 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 Creator had granted them longer life, yea and procured them to be baptised, they might have died in actual deadly sin, and have been damned in Hell, with Poena Damni, & Sensus, both of being deprived of the beatifical Vision, and of insufferable torments of sense; and what greater absurdity is it, that infants should Miss of salvation, for want of intention in the Minister, then if they had not been in the occasion of not being baptised at all, by reason of some other impediment? And therefore I see no reason, why we should for such cases of want of Intention in the Minister (or of due Form or Matter) have recourse to any extraordinary Means; which should not be extraordinary, but ordinary, if God did provide it, whensoever the infant is not baptised, upon whatsoever occasion or impediment, and so indeed Baptism should never be absolutely necessary to salvation. Besides, seeing there can be no certainty of extraordinary means, the matter will still remain doubtful, and objections must be answered some other way. 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 have showed, that some learned Protestants of chief note, require the same intention which we do; and also that every judicious man will certainly judge, that there is no danger of invalidity in Baptism for want of intention, but rather in respect of the Matter or Form; and yet not only the Protestant Church of England teaches, that the Matter and Form are necessary for Baptism, but also divers other Protestants deliver the same Doctrine, as may be seen in The Triple Cord (Pag: 457.) and the thing is evident of itself to every one who understands the terms of Matter and Form. If men may be damned for their Actual sins, though they be supposed to be invincibly ignorant of necessary or fundamental points of Faith (as Potter confesses) why may not infants be deprived of Heaven for original sin, though their want of Baptism be not immediately voluntary to any? 64. Your last Objection (N. 69.) is against Our making he Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist depend upon the casualtyes of the Consecrators true Priesthood and intention, and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is present, and to adore the Sacrament which according to your Doctrine, ●●●ought they can possibly know, may be nothing else, 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 us danger of idolatry, by reason of some particular case, or application of a general true Ground (which can be neither Heresy, nor formal idolatry) while Protestants are exposed to danger of Heresy and idolatry, and consequently of damnation, by reason of the very general Ground, by which, their Actions should be directed? Luther and Lutherans believe the Real Presence, and divers of their chiefest Writers expressly teach, that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist. And Kemnitius proves it by the several say of the Saints, Austin, Ambrose, and Gregory Nazianzen. The Reader may be pleased to see Brierley (Tract: 2. Cap: 1. Sect: 3.) Seeing then Zwinglians, Calvinists, Socinians, and all they who deny the Real 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 certain idolatry, if the Faith of Sacramentaryes be certainly true, as, themselves hold it to be. On the contrary side: If Christ be really and substantially present in the Sacrament, they who deny both his Presence, and Adoration, are Heretics, and expose themselves to the danger of a sin no less heinous 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 yield 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 Affirmative, and do not oblige for all times; 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 Negative Precepts, which oblige for all places, times, and other circumstances. Thus we are not obliged to be at all times 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 therefore Lutherans be Hererikes and Idolaters, for adoring Christ in the Eucharist, if it be only a piece of bread; other Protestants shall be Heretics, and as bad, or worse, than Idolaters, if indeed Christ, true God and man, be really present. The difference then and doubtfulness among you, concerns Matter of Faith; but that which you object to us, concerns only matter of Fact. We are most assured of this general Ground; Christ is re●●● present in the Consecrated Host; but it is not an Article of Faith, that this Host in particular is Consecrated, or, that that which seems to be bread and wine, is indeed such. You say; We command men to believe for certain, that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but for certain you speak against your conscience, if you would have the Reader to believe, that we command men to believe with certainty of Faith, that Christ is present in this or that particular Host; though, unless we have some grounded positive reason to the contrary, we ought not positively to doubt; which would be but an Act of imprudency, or perhaps uncharitableness, or injustice; as it happens in a thousand cases, wherein we have no certainty of Faith, or Metaphysical evidence, and yet it would be mere foolishness, positively and practically to doubt of them: nor could there be in this case any shadow of danger to commit formal, or culpable Idolatry. Religion is a moral Virtue, and requires not, for its direction in particular occasions, the certainty of Faith, but is regulated by the virtue of Prudence, which in our case doth most reasonably judge, that Christ is really present, in that Host, which we have good reason to judge is Consecrated; and if there be no danger of formal idolatry, there can be no danger of damnation. But in the mean time, you should consider, that by your fallible Faith, you can have 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; seeing you hold, that any error against Divine Revelation, is damnable in itself, no man must read Scripture, or seek to find the sense thereof, lest he chance to miss of the true meaning, and so expose himself to danger, of committing a thing damnable in itself. You blame Charity Maintained because you conceive he would not have us subject to any uncertainty in matters belonging to salvation; and yet now you object against all Catholics, that they adore our Saviour, when they are not absolutely certain that he is present; though indeed, if passion did not blind you, you would condemn Lutherans only, who believe, that bread remains, and therefore if Christ be not really present, as you hold for certain he is not, they adore that which is nothing else but a piece of bread: whereas we Catholics believing that bread doth not remain, 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 and not to any Creature; which if you will hold for true idolatry, you must condemn all good Christians of idolatry who adore God as He is in Heaven, Earth, and every 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.) speaks home to the purpose of freeing Catholics 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 idol, that is, to an imaginary God, who hath no foundation in essence or existence: And is that kind of superstition, which by Divines is called superstition of an undue object: Now it is evident that the Object of their Adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, 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 eternal God, hypostatically joined with his holy humanity which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacramental signs: And if they thought him not bresent, they are so fare from worshipping the bread in this case that themselves profess it to be idolatry to do so, which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical. If their confidence and fancyfull opinion hath engaged them upon 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 wherein you seem to triumph, it is time to go forward in proving the necessity of a Living infallible Judg. 67. Fourthly then, I resume the Argument of Charity. Maintained (Part: 1. Chap: 2. N. 23. Pag: 67.) There was no Scripture for about two thousand years from Adam to Moses: And again for about two thousand years more, from Moses to Christ our Lord, Holy Scripture was only among the people of Israël; and yet there were Gentiles endued with divine Faith, as appears in Job and his friends. Wherefore during so many ages, the Church alone was the instructor of the faithful, by means of Tradition. The Church also of Christ was before the Scriptures of the New Testament, which were not written instantly, nor all at one time, but successively, upon several occasions; and some after the decease of most of the Apostles: And after they were written, they were not presently known to all Churches; and afterwards some were doubted of, &c: 68 To this Argument (Pag: 100 N. 123.) You answer, that it is just as if I should say, York is not in my way from Oxford to London, therefore Bristell is: Or a dog is not a horse: Therefore he is a man. As if God had no other ways of revealing himself to men, but only Scripture, and an infallible Church, whereas S. Paul telleth us, that men may know God by his works, and that they had the Law written in their hearts. Either of these ways might make some faithful men without either necessity of Scripture, or Church. To this purpose you cite also S. chrysostom, 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 speak not of extraordinary cases or concurrence, but of the ordinary Means, which God in his Holy Providence is wont to use, helping one man by the ministry 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 serve to beget Faith for that time wherein no Scripture, either of the Old, or new Law was written. Will you take up the Apostle for saying, Fides ex auditu, and tell him, that there be other Means beside hearing, to beget Faith, as the Law written in men's hearts, and consideration of God's creatures? If this be not the state of the Question, to what purpose do you through your whole Book, seek to establish the sufficiency of Scripture alone, and to destroy the necessity of the Church's Declarations, and Traditions? Since, when all is done, you may be told in your own words, That without necessity of Scripture or Church, there are other Means to produce Faith, and so all your Arguments will be like this; York is not in my way &c: A dog is not a horse &c: By this Means, one may with the Old Heretics 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 likewise the Swenckfeldians rejected the wtitten word, as the letter that killed contenting themselves with internal Spirit; and might with you allege, that men had the Law written in their hearts. Yourself say (Pag: 15●. N. 38. The Church is, though not a certain Foundation of proof of my Faith, yet a necessary Introduction to it; Which you must understand in the Ordinary way. Unless you have a mind to contradict yourself, and say; That absolutely there are no other possible means to attain Divine Faith, than by the Scripture and the Church, as a necessary introduction to it. Yourself therefore must answer your own 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 London were either York, or Bristol, or that a dog must be either a horse, or aman; were not these consequences very Good? But York is not; therefore Bristol is; But a dog is not a horse; therefore he is a man? Now, the Ordinary necessary means to produce Faith, being either Scripture, or the Church; if we subsume; But it is not Scripture, (which is evident for that time, when there was no Scripture) it clearly follows; Therefore it is the Church, which I Hope, you will not deny to have been infallible in the Apostles time, before Scripture was written; and so your examples prove against none but yourself. 70. We must still remember, that Faith being the Gift of God, we cannot believe, except in cases wherein God by his Eternal Providence hath decreed to afford us his particular Grace for that end; which he is not wont to do, unless the conditions by Him prescribed, be performed. Since therefore the Church hath been appointed, as the ordinary Means to attain Faith, we ought not to promise ourselves the particular assistance of Grace, necessary for exercising an Act of true Faith except under condition of hearing and submitting to that Church, and not by consideration only of God's creatures, or by the Law written in our hearts, or by extraordinary enthusiasms, private spirits, and the like. If it had been Gods holy pleasure to require of men to believe only that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of those that seek Him, or some other few Articles, he would have afforded his sufficient supernatural Grace to believe those Points, as also to love Him, repent of our sins, and attain salvation by believing those Points only (for as much as would belong to Faith:) But de facto it falls out otherwise, and we are to believe many other Points, as yourself pretend to teach (Pag: 133. N. 13. where you say, That they who should believe the said Article, That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, (Heb: 6.11.) might be rewarded, not with bringing them immediately to salvation without Christ but with bringing them first to Faith in Christ, and so to salvation: Which you endeavour to prove by the story of Cornelius (Act: 10.) of whom you say (Pag: 134.) If he had refused to bell evein Christ after the sufficient Revelation of the Gospel to him and Gods will to have him believe it, he that was accepted before, would not have continued accepted still, because one of the conditions which Christ requires for remission of sins, and salvation from him, is, that we believe what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared, to have been revealed by him. This confirms what I said, that God doth not give Grace to Believe, Hope, and Love, except upon those conditions which he appoints and requires, which now is not only to believe some one Article, or to attain Faith by the mere consideration of God's creatures, or by the Law written in our hearts, or by immediate extraordinary lights, but by the Ministry of the Church; and therefore (Ephes: 4.11.12.) Pastors and Doctors are said to be given to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the Ministry, unto the edifying of the Body of Christ. Which declares, that men cannot be made members of the Body of Christ, but by the Ministry of Pastors and Doctors: And even those Protestants who rely upon the private Spirit for knowing true Scripture, will grant, that the Spirit is not given but when the Church's Ministry precedes as an Introduction, or, as Potter (Pag: 139.) speaks, the present Church works upon all whithin the Church, to prepare, induce, and persuade the mind as an outward means, to embrace the Faith, to read and believe the Scriptures. 71. It remaymes then, that not Scripture, but the Church, (which was before Scripture, and from which we receive it) must be the necessary means, in the ordinary course which God hath appointed to produce Faith, and decide Controversyes in Religion, and consequently, must be infallible according to your own Doctrine (Pag: 35. N. 7.) that the means to decide Controversyes in Faith, and Religion, must be endued with an universal 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 believe, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing. 72. 5. I urge the Argument of Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chap: 2. N. 23. Pag: 69.) If Protestants will have Scripture alone for their Judge or Rule, let them first produce some Text of Scripture, affirming that by the entering thereof, 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 entering of it, infallibility went out of the Church, so neither do we, neither have we any need to do so. But we say, that it continued in the Church even together with the Scriptures, so long as Christ and his Apostles were living, and then departed: God in his Providence having provided a plain 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 maintain it. We can show no Scripture afsirming infallibility to have gone out of the Church; therefore 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, therefore he is still Living. Me thinks in all reason, you that challenge privileges and exemption from the condition of men, which is to be subject to error; you that by virtue of this privilege usurp Authority over men's consciences, should produce your Letter-patents from the King of Heaven, and show some express warrant for this Authority you take upon you; otherwese you know, the Rule is, ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur, presumitur pro libertate. 74. This Answer is easily confuted. First, I must return it upon yourself, with thanks for your voluntary express grant, That no Scripture afsirmes, that by entering of it, infallibility went out of the Church. Remember your own saying; that there are only two Principles common to Christians; Reason, and Scripture: than it is evident, that mere natural Reason cannot determine any thing in this matter, and that you grant it cannot be proved by Scripture, that infallibility went out of the Church by the entering of Scripture, what remains, but that you have no proof at all for it? And, since that you directly grant, infallibility to have continued for some time in the Church, even together with the Scriptures, and that neither by reason, nor Scripture, you can prove that it ever departed from Her; we must of necessity conclude, that she still enjoys that privilege, most necessary for deciding controversyes belonging to infallible Christian faith. You say, God hath provided a plain and infallible Rule, to supply the defect of living and infallible Guides. But we have proved the contrary, That Scripture is not plain 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 plains of Scripture; and therefore you cannot infer; scripture is sufficient; therefore the Church is not infallible. You teach (Pag: 101. N. 126.) That though all the necessary parts of the Gospel be contained in every one of the four Gospels, yet they which had all the Books of the New Testament, had nothing superfluous; for it was not superfluous, but profitable, that the same thing should be said divers times, and be teslifyed, by divers witnesses. Therefore the Testimony of the Church, if she were supposed to be infallible, might be profitable, although Scripture were clear and sufficient. Protestants pretend, that we can prove matters belonging to Faith, only by Scripture: Wherefore you must either prove by some plain Text of Scripture, that infallibility died, as I may say, with the Apostles, or never affirm hereafter any such groundless, voluntary, and pernicious Proposition. From Scripture we learn, that with out repentance are the gifts of God. (Rom: 11.29) And it is an Axiom of natural Reason, Melior est conditio possidentis. God once bestowed upon the Church, the gift of infallibility; and therefore without some evident positive proof, you are not to deprive her of it: And we are not obliged to produce any other Argument, except to plead Possession, which you cannot take from us without some evident proof to the contrary; And you being the Actor, and we the Defendants, not we, but you must prove; and perform what you exact of us, to show some express warrant &c: though it be also most true that we have great plenty of convincing proofs for the infallibility of God's Church. 75. As for your Instance about the King of Sweden, I believe you will lose your jest, when I shall have asked whether this were not a good Argument; we can know by Scripture alone, whether the King of Sweden be alive or dead; but we know by Scripture, he was once Living, and know not by any Scripture that he is dead: Therefore, for aught we know, he is alive; and so your example returns upon yourself; that seeing you know by Scripture infallibility to have been once in the Church, and that by no Scripture, (which with you must be the only proof in this case) you know, that it ever departed from Her, you must believe that still she enjoys it. As for us, we challenge no Privileges, but such as were granted by our Saviour to his Church, and which we prove by the same Arguments, whereby the Apostles and their Successors prove their Authority, (as shall be showed hereafter) and the Rule, Ubi contrarium manifestè non probatur, praesumitur pro libertate, is profanely applied to our present case, wherein it is an unspeakable benefit to have our liberty, not taken away, but moderated, directed, and elevated to the End of Eternal Happiness. If in any case, certainly in this, that saying, Licentia omnes sumus deteriores, is most true; as lamentable experience teaches in so many heresies, and so implacable contentions of Heretics 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 mischief, it is necessary to acknowledge some infallible Living Judge, and so your Rule for Liberty, being rightly applied, proves against yourself: And the Church having once confessedly enjoyed infallibility, I must return against you your own words: Me thinks in all Reason, you that presume to take away Privileges once granted, by God himself, for the Eternal Good of souls, should produce some exprress warrant for this bold attempt; especially it being a Rule, Privilegia sunt amplianda; chief, when they proceed from a Sovereign Power, and are helped by that Dictate of Reason, Melior est conditio possidentis. And in the mean time, you are he, who break that Rule, Ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur, praesumitur pro libertate, by pretending, that men are obliged to submit Reason, though seeming never so certain 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 own saying, Praesumitur pro libertate, ubi contrarium non manifestè probatur, as it happens in your fallible and only probable Faith, which cannot be manifestly proved to be true; for if it could be so proved, Christian Faith should be absolutely certain, and not only probable: And so, continually you are framing Arguments in favour of your Adversary. 76. I will not here lose time in examining your saying (Pag: 101. N. 126.) The Books 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 Gospel, being contained in every one of the Gospels. Are not the divers profitable things which are contained in some of the Gospels, and omitted in others, part of the Doctrine of Christianity, taught by the Apostles to Christians? Besides, what can you understand by these words (Pag: 101. N. 125.) For aught appears by your reasons, the Church never had infallibility? And yet Charity Maintained spoke of the Church of Christ, as it was before any Scripture of the new Testament was written; which Church He proved to be infallible, because at that time there could be no other infallible Rule or Judge, which is a clear and convincing Reason. And so I hope it appears by his Reasons that the Church once had infallibility. 77. Sixthly: You have these words (Pag: 115. N. 156) Nothing can challenge our belief, but what hath descended to us from Christ by Original and universal Tradition: Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us. Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our belief. Now I say in like manner; it is neither delivered in Scripture, nor otherwise hath descended to us from Christ by Original and Universal Tradition, that Scripture is not at this time joined with some infallible Living Judge, 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 plain 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: Therefore none of these Points can challenge our belief. My saying hath been proved heretofore, and yourself confess, that you do not prove out of Scripture, that with the entering of it, infallibility went out of the Church; but contrarily, that they did remain together for a tyme. 78. Seaventhly: I take an Argument from your own Doctrine, that Scripture is not a material Object of Faith, or an Article which we believe: To which Mayor, I subsume thus: But that Means, by assenting to which alone, I believe all other Points, must itself be assented to, and believed (for how can I believe any thing for an Authority which I do not believe?) Therefore Scripture alone cannot be the Means by which I come to believe all other Points. And seeing no other ordinary Means to produce Faith, can be assigned, besides Scripture, and the Church, we must infer, that the Church is the ordinary Means to produce Faith, and decide Controversyes in Religion; and consequently even according to your own Doctrine, she must be infallible; Otherwise, as you say of the Means to decide controversyes, (Pag: 35. N. 7.) We can yield unto it, but a wavering and fearful Assent in any thing. 79. Eightly. You confess, that the Church erring in any Fundamental Point, ceases to be a Church; and seeing you also profess, that we cannot know what points in particular be Fundamental, you cannot know whether the Church de facto hath not failed. unless we believe: that she is infallible and cannot fail. And yet most Protestant's gra●● that the Church cannot fail, our Saviour having promised tha● 〈◊〉 gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her: In so much as Whitaker against Reynolds, in his Answer to the Preface, (Pag: ●3.) saith; 〈◊〉 believe to the comfort of our souls, that Christ's Church ●●th continued, and never shall fail 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 fail, as you confess (Pag: 277. N. 61.) That there shall be by divine Providence preserved in the world to the world's 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 Doctor affirms, that God hath promised absolutely. And yourself say, (Pag: 106 N. 140.) W● yield unto you, that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points, because (as we conceive) God hath promised so much. By the way; if according to Whitaker, it be a profane Heresy to say the Church shall fail; and that according to Potter, God hath promised so much absolutely, yea and that it was a most proper Heresy in the Donatists against that Article of our Creed, I believe the Catholic Church; and that you also conceive our Saviour Christ hath done so, how dare you say (Pag: 15. N. 18.) The contrary Doctrine I do at no hand believe to be a damnable Heresy? Is it not a damnble Heresy to believe that Christ can fail of his promise? Besides, since these Protestants profess, and you also conceive, that God hath promised the Church shall certainly be assisted, so far as not to err in Fundamental Points; I ask, whether the Church can resist such an Assistance or Motion of God, or no? Whatsoever you answer for Protestants, and yourself, will serve for an Answer to this very Objection of resistibility, or irresistibility, which you make against us, who defend the infallibility of the Church, and absolute certain Assistance, that she shall never err in matters belonging to Faith and Religion. But to return. 80. Seeing the Church cannot perish, she cannot fail in Fundamental Points; and seeing also you confess, that it is impossible to determine in particular what Points be Fundamental; (and we see other Protestants could never yet agree in giving a Catalogue of such Points) we must either believe that she can fail in no Points at all, or else we cannot be sure, that she fails not in Fundamental Articles. This granted, I go a step further, and say; that seeing in the ordinary course of God's Providence, we are not taught by immediate Revelations, Enthusiasms, or the like, but by the Ministry of the Church, it follows, that God hath endued and adorned her with such Prerogatives and Notes, that all who will cooperate with God's Grace, may attain the knowledge of Her, and be able to join themselves to Her Communion, and abandon all other false Synagogues or Congregations. Otherwise it is all one to make the true Church invisible, or undiscernible from other Communityes, and to say there is no true Church at all, in order to any fruit, which faithful people can take or receive from Her; and infallibility in Fundamental Points, which, even Protestants grant Her, will serve to no purpose at all. It is your own saying, (Pag: 105. N. 139.) No Church can possibly be fit to be a Gaide, but only a Church of some certain denomination. And what comfort can it be to our souls as Whitaker said, That Christ's Church never shall fail, if we cannot know where that Church is, nor that there be Means and Notes, to show her unto us? Neither can any be obliged to obey her Commands, follow her Doctrine, hear her preachers, frequent her Sacraments &c: unless they can be sure to find her. (Rom: 10. Vers: 14.15.) How shall they believe him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a Preacher? But how shall they preach unless they be sent? Behold preaching, in the ordinary course, necessary to Faith, and lawful Mission necessary 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 govern, and Doctors to teach. And (Esay: 62.6.) We read; upon thy walls, Jerusalem, I have 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 have auditors, who must be known, and these must know where their Preachers are to be found. Even Calvin (Lib: 4. Inst: Chap: 1. Sect: 4.) Saith, that the knowledge of the visible Church is not only profitable, but necessary for us, and that we are to be kept under her custody and government all the days of our life, our weakness requiring that we be her Disciples through the whole course of our life. And having (Sect 5.) alleged 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 Means of the Gospel, as Paul tell us (Rom: 10.17.) That Faith comes by hearing. Although the Power of God be not tied to outward means, yet he hath tied us to the ordinary way of teaching. Whereby we see, that even those who talk so much of the private Spirit, yet profess that it is not given without the Ministry of the Church, as I said above. Fulk also (in his Answer to the counterfeit Catholic, Pag: 100) says of Preachers: Truth cannot be continued in the world but by their Ministry. And in Propositions and Principles disputed in the university of Geneva. (Pag: 845.) The Ministry is an essential mark of the true Church. Mr. Deering (in his Reading upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap: 3. Lecture 15.) saith; Salvation springeth in preaching of the Gospel, and is shut up again 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) maintaineth, 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 mark this. If Scripture were of itself evident in all Points of Faith, it were sufficient to read 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 been said, these important Corollaryes are manifestly deduced. First: That the true Church, which all aught to seek, and may find if they endeavour, and be not wanting to God's Grace, is a visible Congregation, which may be distinguished from all other, and so come to be of one denomination. For, it is evident, our Saviour said not of false pastors and prelate's, he that hears you, hears me Luc: 10.16. nor were false Preachers sent by him; nor did he appoint Pastors, Doctor's &c. to be followed in a false Church; nor did he appoint watchmen etc. in Babylon, but in Jerusalem: nor can the say of Protes●nts, which I have ●ited above, be understood either of a false Church, or of a true Church, as it were in general and in abstracto, without being possible to be known in particular. But they must be understood, of a true Church; with relation to us, and the salvation of particular persons, for which end our B Saviour did constitute, and doth preserve Her: What else ●●n calvin's words signify? That it is necessary for us to know her; That the keeps and defends us; 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 Us to perfection, but by the education of the Church: That he inspires Faith, by the instrument of the Gospel, and Means of hearing; and that God hath tied us to this ordinary way. And what else can Fulk, and other Protestants mean. For it were but foolery to say, That an unknown Ministry is an essential Mark of the true Church? Or that salvation springeth in a preaching not known where to be found, and is shut up with ceasing of it? Or that truth cannot be continued: in the world without the ministry of Preachers? Or of any such say? 82. Secondly: It follows, that seeing there must always be a known particular Church which cannot perish, that is in your Principles, cannot err in Fundamental Points, that known Church must be infallible absolutely in all Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental. For, if we did conceive she could err in any one Point of Faith, we could not rely on her Authority in any other; which you also grant, as we have lately showed; and (Pag: 105. N. 139.) you speak directly to our present purpose in these words: We utterly deny, the Church to be an Infallible Guide in Fundamentals; for to say so were to oblige overselves to find some certain society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither do, nor can err in Fundamentals, nor in declaring what is Fundament all: And consequently to make any Church an Infallible Guide in Fundamentals, 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 always a visible Church discernible from all false Congregations, which Church cannot err in Fundamental Points of Faith: Therefore there must always be a discernible Church, Infallible in all things she proposes, and requires to be believed. 83. Thirdly: It is deduced: That even according to the most rigid Protestants, God doth not ordinarily afford his Grace for bringing men to Faith by the only consideration of his Creatures, or by the Law written in our hearts, or by other secet means, but by teaching, preaching, and the like. By which consideration, we have not only confuted what you said, (Pag: 100 N. 123.) that men might be made Faithful without either necessity of Scripture; or Church; but that also is answered, which you Object (Pag: 356. N. 38.) where you ask; Why should not I be made a true and Ortodoxe Christian, by believing all the Doctrine of Christ, though I cannot derive my descent from a Perpetual Succession that believed it before me? To which demand, the Answer is very easy, and convincing, to all such as against the Pelagians, believe true Christian Faith to be the Gift of God, and producible only by his special Grace and Inspiration, which he gives only by the means appointed in his Holy providence, that is, Preaching, Teaching, and Ministry of his visible Church, as we have heard Calvin saying, God inspires Faith, by Means of the Gospel, as Paul tells us, that Faith comes by hearing. And if any will take upon them, to believe by force of natural Reason, or by Revelation in Scripture, understood by their own wit and interpretation, they shall be sure to be miserably deceyved, and be far enough from exercising any true Act of Divine supernatural Faith, necessary to Salvation. Now the Church by Divine Institution cannot consist without a Succession of Bishops, from the Apostles to the world's end, and therefore God gives not his Assistance for the production of true Faith, except by the Ministry of such a Church, as is governed by Bishops; though no man denies, but that he might have done otherwise, by ordaining and ordering another course of his holy Providence; as Protestants will grant that God might have 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 appear 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 seek, to hear, to obey the Church? You would answer in this manner: For commands to s●eke the Church, I have not yet met with any, and I believe, you, if you were to show them, would be yourself to seek. But yet if you could produce some such, we might seek the Church to many good purposes, without supposing her a guide Infallible. And then for hearing and obeying the Church, I would feign know, whether none may be heard and obeyed, but those that are infallible? Whether particular churches, Governors, Pastors, Parents, be not to be heard and obeyed? Or whether all these be infallible? I wonder you will thrust upon us so often these worn out objections, without taking notice of their Answers. But all this is clearly confuted, by what hath been said already. And 1. What Christian would not wonder, as I said, to hear you affirm, that you have not met with any commands to seek the Church? If the Ministry of the Church be the ordinary Means to attain 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 Pastors and Doctors; if it be necessary to know her, as Calvin confesses; if Faith, remission of sins, and salvation cannot be had except by her Means; I beseech you, are not these sufficient commands to seek Her, or rather may we not call this command of seeking her, either the command of Commands, or else a command employed in all the commands, of Believing, Hoping, Loving, Repenting and seeking salvation, seeing these cannot be had, but by seeking, and finding her, and is it not evident, that if we be obliged to attain an End, we are bound to seek out the Means, which are necessary for that End? Nay do you not speak inconsequently to yourself, while you deny not, but that there is a command to hear and obey the Church, and yet deny that there is any command to seek her? It seems you are indeed a child of Adam, who would hid yourself from God, and from those Superiors whom he hath appointed to guide and govern you, in his place. If one believe that there are some, whom by God's appointment he is to hear and obey, in order to Heaven, and Happiness, 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 seek the Church, to many good purposes, without supposing Her a Guide Infallible. No doubt, but, speaking in general, we may seek one without supposing him to be a Guide Infallible, as one may seek some lost sheep, such as you are, to bring them from Heresy to the Church, and from Socinianism to true Reason, (Which will not be guided by itself, but by a Superior Master, apppointed by God) without supposing them to be Infallible Guides. But when we seek a Church, from which alone we con learn with certainty required to Faith, what Scripture is Canonical and all Points of Faith necessary to salvation (neither of which we can learn from Scripture) we must suppose that Church to be Infallible. Thus all they who believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, (whether total, or not) consequently believe it to be infallible: And (Pag: 35. N. 7.) you confess, that the Means to decide controversyes in Faith and Religion, must be endued with an Universal 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 Eternal Salvation; seeing, as I said, we have no other certain and sufficient Means, to believe scripture, and other Articles of Faith. And now, I beseech you, tell me, whether we hear and obey all particular Churches, Governors, Pastors, and Parents, as Judges of Controversyes in Faith and Religion, and the only Means to propose to us all Points necessary to be believed? Certainly, if we were obliged to hear and obey them in so eminent a degree, (as we are not) we ought also to believe them to be infallible, even according to your own Assertion repeated in divers places of your Book. I wonder you and other Protestants will be still thrusting upon us this worn-out Objection, without taking notice of the Answer which hath been so often given, and which shows, that your Objection tumes against yourself. And as for our obligation to seek the Church, none can speak 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 judgement. 85. Fiftly; I know not whether you speak more untruly, or perniciously, or (give me leave to speak truth) more ridiculously, when (Pag: 105. N. 139.) you say to Charity Maintained: You must know there is a wide difference between, being infallible in Fundamentals, and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentals. Dr. Potter says, That the Church is the former; that is, There shall be some men in the world, while the world lasts, which err not in Fundamentals; for otherwise there should be no Church: For to say the Church, while it is the Church may err in Fundamentals, 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 Fundamentals, signify 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 seem witty by jesting sacrilegiously in things belonging to God. The Church cannot err in Fundamental Ponts, because if she err in such Points, she is no more a Church. Why say you not thus? All men are infallibly true, because if they err, they cease to be true, in that wherein they err. Mr. Chillingworth is immortal, and cannot die, because if he die, he is no more Mr. Chillingworth; and happy had it been for him, and others seduced by his sophistry, si non fuisset natus homo ille. Thus also you may say: That God, when he threatened and decreed, that Adam should be mortal, and die, if he transgressed his command, at the same time even after his transgression he was immortal and could not die, because if he died, he should no more be Adam. To be immortal, in common sense, signify a certainty not to die, and not ridiculously, that if he die, he doth exist no more; and so not to exist implies the direct contrary of being immortal, and supposes one to be mortal; and therefore to say, The Church is infallible, because if she err, she is no more a Church, comes to this, that she is fallible, which is directly contrary to infallible. For, as we said of immortality, so in proportion, infallibility must signify an assurance not to err; and the Church to be infallible in Fundamental Points, must signify, that she cannot err in them, and so not lose her being by such error, which is plainly opposite to your saying, that she may err, and thereby cease to be. You err therefore, in not distinguishing between Actum primum and secundum, or Potentiam and Actum, as Philosophers speak. To say, a Church is infallible, or cannot err or be destroyed, signify some antecedent, either extrinsecall or intrinsecall, Principle, or Power, preserving Her in such manner, as that such a Principle, cannot actually consist with error. And therefore you speak not like a Philosopher, in saying, The Church is infallible in Fundamentals, that is, There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts, which err not in Fundamentals, passing ab actuad potentiam, and proving that men are infallible, because de facto they err not, whereas men may chance not to err, and yet not be infallible. You have heard Whitaker saying, We believe to the comfort of our souls, that Christ's Church hath continued, and never shall fail so long as the world endureth, and we account it a profane Heresy to teach otherwise. What comfort, I pray, can it be to souls, that the Church may err in Fundamental Points, yet so, as she remains no more a Church; which Whitaker accounts a profane Heresy? Every one conceives infallibility to be a favour, and Privilege? You tell us the plain contrary; That infallibility in the Church, for the most principal and necessary Points of Faith, doth not signify, that she may not err in them, but that if she err, she must inevitably perish, or die by such a damnable error, and become as it were the Devil's martyr, by dying for so bad a cause: Which surely is no favour or Privilege; especially if we call to mind, an other Doctrine of yours, that Errors not Fundamental are compatible with the Being of a Church, which is a greater favour than to be destroyed: And therefore how can infallibility in Fundamental Points, in your way of explication, (that if she err in such Points she ceaseth to be a Church) be a Privilege or Favour, seeing no body will say, that fallibility and error in Points not Fundamental, which yet destroy not the Church, are favours? Other men conceive, that these Propositions are convertible: Whosoever is infallible, cannot err; and, whosoever cannot err, is infallible: But you contrary to all other men's Logic, say the Church is infallible, because she may err damnably and desperately, and thereby lose her Being. 86. When Protestants teach, That the Church cannot perish, but is infallible in Fundamental Points, they make a difference between Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental; and teach, That she may fail and de facto hath failed in these, but cannot fail in those. But you in opposition to all others maintain, That the Church may err both in Fundamental and not Fundamental Articles; from whence, every one would infer, that she is absolutely fallible in both, and infallible in neither; or if infallible in either, in both: And yet you have found a devise, that though she err in both those kinds of Articles, she is infallible in one of them only, that is, in Fundamental Points: And fallible in Points not Fundamental. A rare piece of Philosophy! To err damnably, and Fundamentally, and yet be infallible! Yea, which is most admirable, to be infallible, because she errs most deeply, and be fallible because she errs in matters of lesser moment. Beside, other Protestants put a difference between the universal Church is infallible and cannot err in Fundamental Points, but that Particular Churches and Persons may; But in your doctrine there can be no such distinction. The universal Church, with you, is infallible, because if she err Fundamentally, she ceases to be a Church, as also Particular Churches, if they err 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 universal Church, which is contrary to the doctrine of other Protestants, and to your own words also (Pag: 106. N. 140.) We yield unto you, that there shall be a Church which never erreth in some Points, because (as we conceive) God hath promised so much. Now you will not say, that God hath promised so much to particular Churches and Persons; and therefore you must put a difference between the universal, and particular Churches; which difference cannot stand with this your speculation, that the Church is only in fallible in some points, because if she err in them, she ceases to be a Church: which exotic kind of infallibility agrees to all particular Churches, and persons. 87. Hence it is, that Protestants ground the Perpetuily of the univerfall Church, not upon a probable belief or hope that it shall be so, or upon Her actual not erring Fundamentally, as you do, but upon some antecedent Principle, namely, the Promises of our Saviour Christ and Assistance of the Holy Ghost. Dr. Potter in particular, whom you undertook to defend, speaks very clearly to this purpose (Pag: 105.) in these words, The whole Militant Church, (that is all the members of it) cannot possibly err, either in the whole Faith, or any necessary Article of it. For, such an error must needs disunite all the Members from Christ the Head; and so dissolve the Body, and leave Him no Church, which is impossible. Mark that he saith not as you do; The Church cannot err in any necessary Article, because thereby she should cease to be a Church, but contrarily, seeing it is impossible that she can cease to be a Church, and leave Christ no Church, she cannot possibly err in the whole Faith, or any necessary Article of it. With what modesty, or conscience do you allege here Dr. Potter, as if he did not disagree from you? The contrary whereof will appear more by his words (Pag: 153.154.155.) The Church, saith he, Universal is ever in such manner assisted by the good spirit, that it never totally fails, or falls of from Christ. For it is so firmly founded on the Rock: Matth: 16.18. (that is on Christ the only foundation, Cor: 3.11.) that the gates of Hell) whether by temptation, or persecution) shall not prevail against it. And that you may see how far he was from dreaming of your chimerical infallibility, he citys Bellarmine (de Eccles: Lib: 3. Cap: 13. saying, That the Church cannot err, is proved out of Scripture, (Matth: 16.) upon this rock I will build my Church) and then goes on in these words: The whole Church cannot so err as to be destroyed. For than our Lords promise here (Matth: 16.18.) of Her stable edification, should be of no value. Observe this: And what he hath afterward, in these words: The Church universal hath not the like assurance from Christ, that she shall not err in unnecessary additions, as she hath for her not erring in taking away from the Faith, what is Fundamental and necessary. It is comfort enough for the Church, that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers, and conserve her on earth against all enemies: But she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error. That the Church be never rob of any truth necessary to the being of the Church, the promises of Christ assure us. Behold; First; The Church may err in not Fundamental, but cannot err in Fundamental Ponts, whereas you say she may err in both. 2. That the reason why she cannot err in Fundamental Points, is, because she is firmly founded on the rock, and if she did fail, our Lords promise of her stableedification should be of no value: And therefore the Lord will even secure her from all capital dangers, and of this, the promises of Christ assure us. And this, as I said, is the common doctrine of Protestants: Whereby it appears, that the Church is not said to be infallible in Fundamental Points, because she should perish by every such Error; but contrarily, because she is assisted by the Holy Ghost, never to err in such Points, she shall never be destroyed; in direct opposition to you who say, that she may err, and by erring be destroyed. What a kind of Syllogism must be framed out of this your Doctrine, in this manner? The Church is infallible, or cannot err in Fundamental Points, because if she did so err, she should cease to be a Church: But she may cease to be a Church: Therefore she is infallible, and cannot err in Fundamentals. You should in ferr the direct contrary: Therefore she may err, and is not infallible. I beseech you, of what value should our Saviour's promises be, according to your doctrine? That the Church should not err, at least in Fundamental Points of Faith? No. You say she can err in such Points. In what then? Only in this admirable work, that if she did err, she should be sure to pay for it, by perishing. For, say you, To say the Church, while it is the Church, may err in Fundamentals, implies 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 God's Promises, that that shall be, which implies contradiction to be otherwise; that is, God's 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 upon a Rock, assisted by the Holy Ghost, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her, only to this effect, that if she err, she shall perish; that is, the Gates of Hell shall in the most prevalent way that can be imagined, prevail against her? What foolish impietyes are these? Let us therefore infer out of these Premises: That there must be always a true visible Church, known, and discernible from all false ones, and therefore of one denomination: That even according to Protestants, this true Church must be infallible in all Fundamental Points: That if she be infallible in Fundamental Points, we must believe Her to be infallible in all, even according to your own grant, as I have showed out of your own words: And so finally we must conclude, that there must be always a visible Church of one denomination, and infallible in all Points of Faith, as well Fundamental, as not Fundamental. 88 And by what hath been said, I confute and retort your saying, (Pag: 150. N. 39) A man that were destitute of all means of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet in himself 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 repair 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 himself, is fit to be an infallible Guide to others, per se loquendo, and in actu primo, and needs only that accidental impediments be removed, as it happeneth in our case, the Church being visible, and spread over the whole world. So that she can be hidden to no body, but is furnished with all means 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 repair to her for direction: And then Protestant's teaching that she is infallible in Fundamental points, it follows, that she may be an infallible Guide in such points, and in all other, according to your own 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 us now proceed to other Reasons proving the necessity of an infallible Guide. 89. I prove the infallibility of the Church, by confuting a Reason or similitude much urged by our Adversaries: That to him who knows the way, a Guide is not necessary: And therefore the Scripture being a plain Rule for all necessary Articles of Faith, no living Guide will be necessary. 90. But this Argument is many ways defective. 1. We retort it; it hath been proved that Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule, a Living Guide must be necessary. Certainly if the whole Bible had been put into several men's hands, without any precedent known Tradition, Declaration, or Ministry of the Church, it would have fallen out, that in the most important mysteries of Christian Religion, which now all are obliged to believe, for example, The chiefest Articles of the Creed, Sacraments etc. scarcely any one would have agreed with another; and much more had it been impossible for them by the sole evidence of Scripture, to join in the same Idea, or frame of a Church. Suppose then the Bible had been offered to some Understanding Pagan, wholly ignorant of Christian Religion and Doctrine, do you think he would have been able to gather from the bare words of Scripture, the same meaning, or Articles, which Christians now believe by the help of Tradition, instruction, and preaching? I say, he would never have fallen upon the same meaning of the words, whether he did believe them to be true, or no, (as we see Protestants themselves cannot agree.) Which is a sign, that the words only of Scripture do not evidently signify those mysteries, which Christians believe them to contain: Otherwise every one who understands the words, would understand the true sense, as ordinarily we understand the meaning of other writings, wherein we see men do seldom disagree. And the more we consider the force, use, and necessity of Tradition, the more we shall be constrained to rank it among those things, which are better known, by wanting, than we can apprehend by always enjoying them. If men did do things only by the Book, even in mechanical arts, or handicrafts, how different and unlike 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 would they be both from one another, and from those, which artificers do now by custom and tradition work with great ease and uniformity? I doubt whether you would trust an apothecary taught only by his book, or pharmacopaeia, without any master at all. 91. Secondly; If one know a way as perfectly as it is capable to be known, 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 error, such a knowledge of such a way would not be sufficient of itself, but a guide would be necessary to sinned, and walk in it, without danger. Now we have showed, not only that the Scripture contains not all points necessary to be believed, (for which therefore we stand in need of a guide) but also that there is no certain infallible Rule, how to know certainly the meaning of those truths which it contains, which we proved out of Protestants themselves, and by the many hard and intricate Rules which they give for that purpose, and by their perpetual and irreconciliable differences, which could not happen, if they had any such clear and certain Rules, wherein agreeing, they must needs agree among themselves. Que sunt eadem uni tertio sunt eadem inter se. Therefore beside scripture which you compare to a way, there must be a living Judge to guide us in that way. 92. Thirdly: You teach, That Scripture is a plain way, in this sense, that although we cannot either by it, or any other Means, know what points in particulat be Fundamental; yet because all such Truths, and many more, are evident in Scripture, whosoever knows all that is evident, shall besure to know all that is necessary or Fundamental. Now this very Doctrine shows, that Scripture alone cannot be a plain 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 elsewhere; and therefore the End (which is to know all necessary points, and can be attained by this Means alone) cannot be of obligation, which to affirm is absurd; as if one should say, points necessary to be known, are not necessary to be known. By a Living Guide this difficulty is avoided, we being sure that the Church will not fail to propose in due time, all that shall be necessary without imposing on men's Consciences, heavy, and ungrounded burdens. 93. Fourthly; There is a great and plain disparity between the knowing of a way by our corporal eyes, and finding out a Truth by our understanding, the eye of our soul. Our senses are naturally, necessarily, and immovably determined to their objects. One who is supposed to know his way perfectly, may Voluntarily take an other way, but cannot therefore be said to mistake his own. It passes not so with our understanding, except in some prime principles of Reason, evident of themselves. In other points, which either are elevated above the natural forces of humane capacity, or have an appearance of being contrary to it, or cross our will, or carry with them a repugnance to the natural dictates and inclinations of flesh and blood, our understanding is apt and ready to mistake or be misled, as daily experience teaches, and therefore 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 own Assertion (Pag: 329. N. 7.) that, the Points which we believe, should not be so evidently certain, as to necessitate our understanding to an Assent, that so there might be some Obedience in Faith, which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience as there is not, when the understanding does all, and the will nothing. Now the Religion of protestants, though it be much more credible than yours, yet is not pretended to have the absolute evidence of sense or demonstration. Behold a confessed difference, between one who knows 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 needful if the way, which is Holy Scripture, were so plain as you pretend: and if the understanding must depend on the will for believing Points which seem evident in Scripture, that there might be some place for obedience; how shall the weakness and mutability of the will itself be established, except by some other infallible Living Authority? And therefore your Argument proves nothing, because it proves too much; that, as one who knows and sees his way, neeeds no help 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 said; Not by man's will was prophecy brought at any time: But the holy men of God spoke, inspired with the Holy Ghost. Which sequels being very false, you must acknowledge a great disparity, between the evident knowing of a way, and understanding Scripture. To which purpose. I may well allege your own words (Pag: 137. N. 19) If we consider the strange power that education and prejudices instilled by it, have over, even excellent understandings, we may well imagine that many Truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough, are yet to such or such a man, prepossessed with contrary opinions, not revealed plainly. I pray you tell us, 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 miss by ignorance, though, as I fayd, he may voluntary go out of it? You must therefore acknowledge, that your similitude or parity is nothing but a disparate, and disparity. 94. Fiftly: Let a man be never so perfect in the knowledge of his way, he shall never come to his journeys end, if he want strength to walk 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 Ministry of the Church▪ as I have declared, and as we have heard Calvin saying God inspires Faith, but by the instrument of the Gospel as Paul teacheth, that Faith comes by hearing: It follows, that none can, in the ordinary course, receive strength to understand, and know the way, which you say is Scripture, without the Ministry of the Church, or a Living Guide; and so it appears many ways, that your Argument, or similitude proves nothing against us, but very much against yourself. 95. Tenthly, and lastly: I prove the universal infallibility of the Church, by answering an Argument or removing an impediment, which Potter objects, as if some Catholic Doctors held not the Church to be universally infallible. This the Doctor (Pag: 149.) pretends to prove out of Dr. Stapleton in particular; as if he did deny the Church to be infallible in Points not Fundamental; to which purpose he citys him (Princip: Doctrinal: Lib: 8. Contr: 4. Cap: 15.) But this is clearly confuted by Charity Maintained (Part: 2. Chap: 5. Pag: 127.128.129.130.) showing, that Dr. Stapleton doth not oppose Points Fundamental to other revealed Truths, or Points of Faith not Fundamental, as if the infallibility of the Church did extend itself only to Fundamental 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 Catholics, as if they were matters belonging to Religion, or if they chance to be such, yet are not defined by the Church. For, if once they be controverted, and the Church give 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 publicly practised by the Church: As also (Rel: Cont: 1. Q. 3. Art: 6.) He expressly saith, that certain Doctrines are either primary Principles of Faith, or else, 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 defined. Of the first kind are the Articles of Faith, and whatsoever is defined in Counsels against Heretics &c: Of the second, are questions, which either belong to the hidden works of God, or to certain most obscure places of Scripture, which are beside the Faith, and of which we may be ignorant without loss of Faith, yet they may be modestly, and fruitfully disputed of. And afterward he teaches, that whatsoever the Church doth universally hold, either in doctrnie or manners, belongs to the foundation of Faith: And proves it out of S. Austin, (Serm: 14. de verb: Domini. Ep: 28.89.96.) who calls the custom of the Church, Ecclesiae morem fundatissimum, & Fidem fundatissimam, consuetudinem Ecclesiae fundatissimam, Authoritatem stabilissimam fundatissimae Ecclesiae: The most grounded practice of the Church, and most grounded Faith, the most grounded custom of the Church, the most firm Authority of the most grounded Church. Can any thing be more clear, to show, that according to Dr. Stapleton, the infallibility of the Church reacheth further than to those Points which you call Fundamental, and that it belongs to the very foundation of Faith, that we believe whatsoever the Church holds? And that it is not lawful for any to dispute against such determinations of the Church? Which doth overthrow your distinction of Points Fundmentall and not Fundamental▪ though you allege the Authority of S. Thomas (2.2 Q. 2. Art: 5.) and Stapleton in favour thereof. For S. Thomas in the very place you cited, after he had said, that there are some objects of Faith which we are bound explicitly to believe; addeth, that we are bound to believe all other Points, when they are sufficiently propounded to us, as belonging to Faith. Thus far Charity Maintayn●d. Whereby it is manifest, that according to Stapleton, the Church cannot err 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 universally infallible in all points belonging to Faith, whether they be of themselves Fundamental, or not Fundamental. I say, of themselves: for in sensu composito, as I may say, That is, upon supposition that once they be defined, he expressly declares; as we have seen, that that belongs to the foundation of Faith whatsoever the Church universally holds either in Doctrine or worship. When therefore he saith: (Princip: Doctrine: 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 speaks not of points of Faith not Fundamental, which being once defined, he professes to belong to the foundation of Faith, but in the next precedent words he expressly declares, that when he saith, the Church is not infallible, he understands only, that infallibility was not granted to her Propter aut inutiles curiositates explendas, aut subtilitates non necessarias investigandas; Either for satisfying idle curiosities, or finding out unnecessary subtiltyes; and proves it, because God and nature as they are not wanting in things necessary, so are they not lavish in superfluityes. And therefore Potter did wrong the learned Stapleton, alleging those his words, as if he had ever dreamt, that the Church is not universally infallible in all Points of Faith, whether the matters, of themselves, be great or small. 96. And you also wrong Charity Maintained▪ 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.) speaks very dangerously toward this purpose (of limiting the infallibility of the Apostles and Scripture to necessary Points only, as he restrains the Promises made by Christ to his Church) where he endeavoureth to prove, that the infallibility of the Church is limited to Points Fundamental, because as nature, so God is neither defective in necessaries, nor lavish in superfluityes. Which Reason doth likewise prove, that the infallibility of Scripture, and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation, that so God be not accused, as defective in necessaries, or lavish in superfluityes. In which words you say; Charity Maintained wrongs Dr. Potter: Because it is not he, but Dr. Stapleton in him that speaks the words Charity Maintained cavils at. Answer; If Charity Maintained had absolutely affirmed, those to be the very words of Dr. Potter, the Doctor might blame himself only; who having first cited the immediately precedent words of Dr. Stapleton in a different or cursive letter, declaring that they were Dr. stapleton's, and not his own: the words immediately following (for as nature, so God is neither defective etc.) he sets down in the ordinary letter of his Book both in his first and second Edition. 2. Potter accepts, and approves those words, he must be answerable, for all consequences that are truly deduced from them, as if they were his own. 3. The truth is Dr. Stapleton brings those words for a purpose not only different, but contrary to that for which Dr. Potter alleges them, and therefore not Stapleton, but Potter must be liable to all bad consequences, which follow out of them. For, Potter would prove out of them, that infallibility was given to the Church, not for all, but only for Fundamental points of Faith; which we have seen to be directly contrary to the Doctrine of Stapleton, who out of the said words proves only, that infallibility was not granted, for deciding idle curiosities, or unprofitable subtiltyes: And therefore, 4. seeing the life and essence of words, is their signification, this being wholly different in those words, as they are spoken by Stapleton, and understood, misapplyed, and misalledged by Potter, Charity Maintained did not wrong him, but he did wrong Dr. Stapleton in applying the sound, and as I may say, carcase 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 Potter's allegation of those words; and Charity Maintained, as if he had wronged Potter. Who can deny this to be a good consequence; God is neither defective in necessaries, nor lavish in superfluityes; Therefore he hath not induced the Church with infallibility for deciding of unprofitable questions; which is Stapletons' Argument? As contrarily this other is of no force; God is not lavish in superfluityes; Therefore he hath not conferred infallibility upon 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 Fundamental were curious or unprofitable matters.) Which Potter doth infer, directly against the consequence which Stapleton draws from those very same words, affirming, that every thing defined by the Church, belongs to the Foundation of Faith. Besides, since Potter allegeth those words, to prove that the promises of our Saviour made to his Church, must be restrained to Points Fundamental, lest he might seem lavish in superfluityes; Charity Maintained had reason to infer, that for the same Reason of not being lavish in superfluityes, the Doctor might limit the infallibility of the Apostles to necessary and Fundamental Points. Neither is it sufficient for you to say (Pag: 143. N. 30.) that we read in Scripture, All Scripture is divinely inspired, and therefore All Scripture, whether it deliver Fundamental, or not Fundamental Points is true. For, Charity Maintained 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 urged, That All Scripture is divinely inspired, that it is the word of God &c: Dr. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer, to say, That Scripture is inspired, &c: Only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth Fundamental points: Thus Charity Maintained. But you thought safest to dissemble, these words. And I pray, if those unlimited 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 alleged by Potter) must be limited to Fundamental points; why may not those other words, all scripture is divinely inspired, signify only, that all scripture is inspired, for what belongs to points fundamental, or necessary to salvation, as Cha: Ma: doth urge in the same place. 97. Now then, upon the whole matter it is manifest; that the learned Dr. Stapleton, teaches neither more nor less, concerning the Infallibility of the Church, than all other Catholics do. For, (besides that which we have said 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 proofs, or manner of teaching. Est, saith he, in ipsa Doctrina infalliblis, etsi in forma & ratione docendi, non ita: and therefore he puts no difference, between the certainty of her Definitions, though the Reasons or proofs which she use, chance to have, 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 clear, as of themselves alone to convince. 2. He teaches, That the objects of Her certainty are not Questions unnecessary, but such as belong to the substance of Faith, public Doctrine, and things necessary to salvation: and we have 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 foundation 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 Potter's taxing Dr. Stapleton without ground, and against truth. For (Pag: 161.) he saith; Stapleton hath a new pretty devise, that the Church, though she be fallible and discursive in the Means, is yet Prophetical, and depends upon immediate Revelation (and so infallible) in delivering the Conclusion. And (Pag: 169.) he saith: Bellarmin leaves his companion Stapleton to walk alone in this dangerous path and avoweh to the contrary (De Concil: Lib: 1 Chap: § Dicuntur igitur.) that Counsels neither have, nor write immediate Revelations: But Mr. Doctor, to speak truth, Bellarmin leaves Stapleton, just as you leave your art of citing Authors against their meaning. Bellarmin teaches, That Counsels neither have, nor write immediate Revelations. And does not Stapleton purposely teach, and carefully prove the same? And does he not do it, even in the first and Third Notabili, which immediately 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 Prophetical, and depends upon immediate Revelation in delivering the Conclusion; seeing 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 Prophetical, or depending upon immediate Revelations. Who would have believed, that in matters of so great consequence, you could use so little sincerity? Dr. Stapleton teaches the same, and proves very learnedly (Princip: Doctrine: Contr: 4. Lib: 8. C. 15.) Which very Chapter you also cite, and yet make no conscience to tell us, that Bellarmin in this leaves Stapleton. But how then doth Stapleton say, the Doctrine of the Church is discursive in the Means, but is Prophetical and divine in the Conclusion? Answer. We have showed, that Stapleton says expressly in the same place, That the Doctrine of the Church is not Prophetical: And besides, he explicates the word Prophetica by the word Divina, which you leave out, and saith it is divina propter ea quae in tertio & quarto Argumentis produximus: for the causes which we alleged in the Third and Fourth Arguments: In which Arguments he proved, that the Church is infallible, and cannot err, because she is guided and taught by an infallible master the Holy Ghost, as the Prophets were, (and in this agrees with Prophets) though as I said out of Stapletons' express words, with this difference, that the Prophets had immediate Revelations, which the Church pretends not to have, but is infallibly directed by the Holy Ghost, to embrace and declare former revelations, made to the Apostles; upon which assistance the certainty and infallibility of her definitions rely, and not upon discourses or inducements. 99 Potter's falsification will appear more by these words of Stapleton The Doctrine of the Church is discursive in the means, but is prophetical and Divine in the Conclusion: which Potter citys thus the the Church though she be fallible and discursive in the Means, is yet Prophetical, and depends upon immediate Revelation, (and so infallible) in delivering the conclusion. What a mixture is here of Potter's words with the words of Stapleton? Which say not that the Church, depends upon immediate Revelation, but the direct contrary as we have said, and his Parenthesis, (and so infallible) is also a falsificarion, as if Stapleton had grounded the infallibility of the conclusion upon immediate revelation, whereas he grounds it upon an other principle, as we have seen. This being supposed, that Stapleton teaches, the Church to have no immediate Revelations, and the certainty of her Definitions to depend on the assistance of the Holy Ghost, not upon humane disce●●se, and inducements, or Premises, the Doctor had no Reason to say that Stapletons' doctrine is a fancy repugnant to Reason and to itself. He Objects (pag: 168.) A conclusion follows the disposition of the Means, and results from them. But this is not to the purpose; seeing 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 formal Conclusions, essentially, as such, depending on Premises. Neither doth it follow, that there can be no use of diligence and discourse, if the Church be infallible, in the sense I have declared. Thus the Apostles in their Council (Act. 15.) did use diligence, and, as the Scripture saith, there was made a great disputation, and they alleged the working of Miracles and other Arguments of Credibility, and yet no Christian will deny, but that the Apostles were infallible: So the Church must on her behalf use diligence, and discourse, that all things on her part, may be done more sweetly, in order to the persuading of others; but the absolute certainty of her definitions and conclusions, must rely upon those words which the Apostles used, Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis: It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost, and us. Neither likewise doth it follow, that the Canons of Counsels are of equal authority with holy. Scriptures, in which every reason, discourse, Text, and word, are infallible; which we need not say of Counsels, though they be certain and infallible for the substance of their definition; Whereof more may be seen in Catholic Writers, and particularly in Bellarmine whom even Potter doth cite, (de council: Lib: 2. Chap: 12.) and yet, as if he had seen no such matter in Bellarmine, infers against Stapleton (who fully agrees with Bellarmine) that if the canons of Counsels be divinely inspired, they must be of equal Authority with the Holy Scriptures 100 Many other Arguments might be brought, to prove the necessity of an infallible Living Guide, and Ecclesiastical Traditions; from Scriptures, Fathers, Theological Reasons, which I omit, referring the Reader to Charity Maintained (Part. 1. Chap: 2. and 3.) and in this whole Work, I have upon many occasions proved the same. For, this point is so transcendent, and necessary, that we must meet with it, almost in all Controversyes concerning Faith and Religion. This I must not omit, that I having answered, and confuted, all the Objections which you could make against the Arguments and Reasons alleged by Charity Maintained, it follows, that they remain still in force, and prove this most necessary Truth: Scripture alone is not a sufficient Rule of Faith, but Tradition, and a living Judge are necessary to determine Matters belonging to Faith and Religion: And whosoever will take an other way, will have reason (and God grant it prove 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 ut 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 Ecclesiastical Traditions, and magistery of the Ancient, he interprets some places of Scripture in a new manner, he deserved that it should be also said to the Church of him: If there shall rise in midst of thee a Prophet. And a little after thou shalt not hear the words of that Prophet. God grant, that every one hear this wholesome advice: The neglect thereof alone, hath been cause of Schisms and heresies in ancient Time's, and never more than in these lamentable days of ours. 101. But because you do without end object, that we cannot prove 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 prove, the Church by the Church, and the Scripture by Scripture; I will in the next Chapter endeavour to confute, and show the vanity of this so often repeated Objection. CHAP: V IN WHAT MANNER AND ORDER WE PROVE THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH 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 Catholic Writers give to this common objection. We grant that with different sorts of persons, we must proceed in a different way. If one believe not the Church, or Notes, proprietyes, and prerogatives belonging to Her, and yet believe Scripture to be the Word of 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 virtue of Her Authority, what Scripture is Canonical, and what is the true sense thereof, 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 believe Scripture to be the Word of God, to them we prove by Scripture the perpetual Existence, Unity, 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 receive from the Church, as you grant, which was in Being before the Scripture, as all must yield; and yet at that time there wanted not means to find the Church. For, none could have believed the Scripture to be Infallible, unless first they believed the Writers to be infallible; and many were converted to the true Church, before they could believe the Scripture, as not extant at that tyme. So that all must grant, that there be Means, and Arguments, whereby some men may gain such credit, as others may, and aught under pain of damnation, to believe, that they are Persons to be accepted as Messengers of God, and Teachers of Divine Doctrine. 2. Thus Moses, the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, the Apostles, all Apostolical men by whom God hath converted Nations to the true Faith and knowledge of Him, did prove themselves true Preachers, by many effectual, and most certain inducements, independently of the Old, or New Testament; yea S. Irenaeus relates, as you expressly grant, that some Nations were made Christians without any knowledge of the Scripture. As therefore our Lord and Saviour Christ, his Apostles, and all they who afterward converted the world to Christian Religion, proved themselves to be sent by God; (being verified 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, Change of manners, Conversion of all sorts of Persons, of all Countries, through the whole world; and this to a Faith, Profession, and Religion, that proposes many Points, as necessary to be believed, above, and seemingly contrary, to humane Reason, and against men's natural inclinations; together with the consideration of the constancy of Martyrs, Abnegation of Confessors, Purity of Virgins, Fortitude even of the youngest Age, and weaker sex, and other admirable conspicuous Notes, and strong enforcements, to gain an absolute and undoubted 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: Victory over all sorts of enemies, Conversion of Infidels, all which Notes are daily more and more conspicuous and convincing, and shall be increasing the longer the world shall last; and it seems, God in his wisdom and Goodness hath blessed us very particularly since the appearing of Luther, and other modern Heretics, for the greater confusion of them, and glory of his Church; and the same I say of the name Catholic, which is continually more verified by accession of new Countries; as also that of succession of Bishops from the Apostles, particularly in the Sea of Rome; Unity, Stability, Perpetuity: The Church, I say, by these and the like evident Arguments, proves that she deserves credit, as the first Doctors 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 denies these Notes of Miracles, and the rest to be found in the Catholic Roman Church, or despises them as insufficient, opens an inevitable way for Jews, Turks, Gentiles, and all enemies of Christian Religion, to deny the truth thereof; 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 Apostolical 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 proof drawn from Scripture; whereby we are very sure not to run in a Circle, into which we are not entered, while first we believe the Church for such Arguments as I have spoken of, and afterward embrace Scripture for the Church's Authority; and if we be forced to prove the Church by Scripture; it is propter incredulitatem vestram, for your incredulity, and not because indeed it is needful of itself. Whatsoever you object against us in this way, will be found, upon examination, to impugn the infallibility of the Apostles, and Primitive Church, and to prove that Insidels converted to Christianity in virtue of such Arguments, as I have touched, were rather deluded, than converted. 3. If any object, that although, what we have said, be true of the true Church, yet it remains 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 something I have touched already.) This is clear: 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 believe their own 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 believe, these signs shall follow: They shall cast out Devils. &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 marginal notes of the English Bible printed An: 1576. upon (Joan: 14. Vers: 12.) He that believes in me, the works that I do, he shall do, and greater; our adversaries confess and say, that this is referred to the whole body of the Church in whom this virtue doth shine for ever, Luther also (To: 7. Lib: de Judaeis &c:) urgeth against the Jews the daily confirmation of our Christian Faith by Miracles in all Ages since Christ, saying; From God we have learned and received, as an everlasting word and verity of God, for these thousand five hundred years confessed and confirmed by Miracles and signs. How then can it be said, that Miracles have ceased ever since the Apostles time? Now it is evident, that this Gift is lasting in our Church, and in our Church only. The same appears in the Motive of Succession of Bishops; Antiquity; Unity; perpetual Existence; Conversion of Nations; which Propertyes we manifestly prove 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 universal 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 strange, that a Church rejecting and impugning a Divine Institution, can hope for salvation; yea even by this they either acknowledge themselves to have had no absolute certainty, that Episcopacy is de Jure Divino; or else they speak very inconsequently, and unchristianly, that without them, there may be true Churches, and salvation. Who would not wonder to read in Dr. Andrew's the pretended Bishop of Winchester, and a prime man among Protestants in England, these words, directed to the French Huguenot Molin (Respons: add Epist: 2. Petri Molinaei?) Quia hîc idem nobiseum &c: I make no doubt but you are of the same opinion with us in this matter. If without offence you can profess so much, you shall do a thing very grateful to us; if you cannot, you shall perform a thing not ungrateful, if for time to come you meddle not with our affairs. For, in the condition in which you are, it will be hard both to please your own, 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 strange Divinity, and fortitude, and zeal in a Bishop; not to dislike dissembling, in a thing believed to be Juris Divini, lest one offend his parishioners; or that it is not damnable to impugn a thing which is Juris Divini! But what doth Molin answer to this Divinity? Hear him. (Epist: 3.) Non potui dicere &c: I could not say, that the primacy of Bishops is juris Divini, of divine right, but that I should have accused of Heresy our Church, which hath shed so much blood 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 have overthrown that Principle, by which our Religion doth chief defend itself against Papistery: That all things which are juris Divint of Divine Law are contained sufficiently and evidently in Holy Scripture. I beseech the Reader to observe two main 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 concern speculation, or practise; and to hold that it is not damnable, to deny a thing sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, is plain infidelity. 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 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 else 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 certain, and a matter of Faith, that the true Church must have Bishops, and to deny it, is an Heresy in a matter of greatest moment, and which strikes at the very root of Religion; neither can any true Church communicate, or dissemble or connive, with those Congregations who deny this truth, as our English Protestant's do connive and communicate with them, and Dr. Andrews expressly says may be done; yea or with those, who hold it to be only probable and the better doctrine, though not certain, nor the contrary to be Heresy; whereas to affirm that any Article of Faith is only probable, is plain Heresy. And in this Point the Divinity of the French Huguenot Molin is better than that of the English pretended Bishop; I mean for the consequence which he makes, that if Episcopacy be Juris Divini it is damnable to impugn it; and with Molin agrees Dr. Taylor; of Episcopacy, teaching §. 46. That to separate from the Bishop, makes a man at least a Schismatic, and §. 47. That it is also Heresy. And in his Liberty of Prophesying, (Epist: Dedic: Pag: 32.33.) having said, that the Lutheran Churches, the Zwinglians, and the Calvinists reject Episcopacy, he adds; which the Primitive Church would have made no doubt to have called Heresy. More of this, and of the Notes of the Church, may be seen in Charity Maintained (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 upon the Church, not upon Scripture: (which confirms what I said, that the Apostles were not Infallible because they wrote, but their writings deserve credit, because the writers were Infallible.) Thus in the Old Law. Moses gained authority by working Miracles, and by other Arguments of credibility, whereby 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 believe God by giving credit to Moses. They believed our Lord, and Moses his servant (Exod: 14.31. and 19.9:) and there upon they believed the Scripture which he wrote, and proposed as the Infallible word of God, and by it other particulars, even concerning Moses himself. In the New Law; the Apostles proved and settled the Authority of their Persons, before their writings could be prudently received as Divine, or the Word of God. The Reason thereof is, because the Motives or Arguments of credibility, immediately make that credible of which they are effects, which immediately manifest their cause. Now the Motives to embrace Religion agree immediately to the Church or Persons, and not to writings, and so Marc: Vlt: it is said; These signs shall follow those who believe. And therefore, though there were no Scriptures, if the Church did still remain, these motives would also remain; for example, Sanctity of life; Miracles; conversion of Nations; Martirdomes; Victory over all enemies; the name Catholic &c: Which could not agree to Scripture, though we did falsely suppose, that it did remain, and the Church perish. For, no Writing is capable of Sanctity of life, Succession of Bishops &c: yea, the Scripture can have no efficacy, unless it be first believed to be the word of God, and it must be beholding to the Church for such a Testimony; and therefore whatsoever perfections or attributes may seem to belong immediately 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 privileges 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 have no absolute certainty, that the Apostles ever wrought any particular Miracle, to prove immediately 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 been 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 us to believe it to be the word of God, we must also be obliged to believe the Church, in whatsoever she proposes as Divine Verityes, since the Arguments and Reasons of credibility do more immediately prove the true Church than they prove Scripture. 6. The second thing to be observed, is, That when we are obliged to receive some Persons as messengers of God, appointed and assisted by him to deliver Divine Truths, as the Apostles were; we are bound to believe them in all things which they propound for such Truths. For, as I have often said, if they might err in some things of this nature, we could not believe them in any other thing for their sole Authority; as all confess of Scripture, that being once delivered by men of the forsayd Authority as the word of God, it must be receyved as universally true, in all and every least passage, though the Apostles did not confirm by severall 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 receive them, as men who by commission from God, taught the true way to eternal Happiness, and therefore were to be credited in all particulars which they did propose. 7. Out of this true Ground, I infer; That it cannot be said without injury to God's Church, to the Apostles, and God himself, that, when men of our Church work Miracles, and produce other Reasons, to prove that they preach the true Faith and Religion to gentiles, Jews, Turks, or Heretics, those Miracles are not sufficient Proofs of all that which our Church propounds as Divine Truth, but of some particular Points; for example, not of Purgatory, Prayer to Saints, Real Presence etc. but of such Christian verityes, as Protestants believe with us. This cannot be said. For, it is evident, that the same might have been objected against the Apostles, to wit, that God intended to prove by their Miracles, only some verityes believed by Jews, or Heretics, and not every one of the particular mysteries of Christian Religion. Neither can it be said, that the Preachers of our Catholic Church, when they convert Nations, do work Miracles to bring them to I know not what Faith in general, or in abstracto, or an Idea Platonica, but to the Catholic Roman Religion, which if it were false, God in his Goodness could never permit, so many and great Miracles to be wrought, and other so evident Arguments of credibility to be produced, that people must be obliged to receive such Preachers, as Teachers of the true way to Heaven; as he could not permit the Apostles to work Miracles, intending that they should be trusted in some, not in all Points. For, this general Reason taken from God's 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 made good their Authority. Besides, if the said Objection were of force, men de facto can have no certainty, that Scripture is the word of God for all Points contained therein; because it will be said, that although Miracles were wrought to prove that the Bible is the word of God, they might be understood, not to confirm every passage or Text, but only some Truths contained therein. 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 remain any means to convert men to Christianity. For, every one may say, that, not the Point which he apprehends to be false, was confirmed by Miracles, but those other Articles, which he conceives to be true: And so no Heretic 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 contained in it. Neither will any thing remain certain, except a general, unprofitable, impracticable Notion, that the Apostles taught, and the Scripture contains some things revealed by God, without knowing what they are in particular; which would be nothing to the purpose, and therefore 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 have been wrought, in consirmation of those particular Points wherein we disagree from Protestants, as may be seen in Brierly (Tract: 2. Chap: 3 Sect: 7. subdiv: 1.) For example, of Prayer to Saints (out of S. Austin Civit: L. 22. C. 8.) Worship of Relics (out of S. Gregory Nazian: S. Austin, S. Hierom: S. Basil: Greg: Turonen: Theodoret:) the Image of Christ: Real presence, Sacrifice of Christ's Body; Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead; The great virtue of the sign of the Cross; Holy water; Lights in the Church; Reservation of the Sacrament; Holy Chrism; Adoration of the cross; Confession of sins to a Priest, and extreme Unction; which miracles Brierly proves by irrefragable Testimonies, of most creditable Authors, and Holy Fathers; whereof, if any Protestant doubt, he can do no less for the salvation of his soul, than examine the matter, either by the 〈◊〉 of this Author, or of other Catholic Writers, and not only by 〈…〉 clamours and calumnies of Protestant Preachers, in their Sir 〈…〉 Writers, in their Books: And let him take with him for his 〈…〉 thief considerations. 1. That these Miracles were wrought and testified, before any Protestant appeared in the world: And therefore could not be feigned, or recorded upon any particular design against them, and their heresies. 2. That even Protestants acknowledge the Truths of such Miracles. Whitaker. (count: Duraeum, Lib: 10.) saith; I do not think those Miracles vain which are reported to have been done at the monuments of Saints: as also Fox and Godwin acknowledge Miracles wrought by S. Austin (the Monk sent by S. Gregory Pope, to convert England) through God's hand, as may be seen in Brierly (Tract: 1. Sect: 5.) and yet it is confessed by Protestants, and is evident of itself, that he converted us to the Roman Faith. But, not to be long, I refer the Reader to Brierly, in the Index of whose Book, in the word (Miracles) he will find full satisfaction, if he examine his allegations, that in every Age since our Saviour Christ, there have been 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 certain truth; that whatsoever Heretics can object against Miracles wrought by Professors of our Religion, and in proof if it, may be in the same manner objected against the Miracles of our B. Saviour, and his Apostles; and that they cannot impugn us, but jointly they must undermine all Christianity. 9 To these two considerations, let this Third be added; that it is evidently delivered in Scripture, Miracles to be certain Proofs of the true Faith and Religion, as being appointed by God for that end. (Exod: 4.1.) when Moses said, They will not believe me, nor hear my voice, God gave him the Gift of Miracles, that they might believe God had spoken to him. (3. Reg: 17. Vers: 24.) That woman, whose son Elias had raised to life, said; Now, in this I have known 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 Messiah, proved himself to be such by the Miracle; which he wrought The blind see, the lame walk; the lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the dead rise again. Which words signify, that Miracles are not only effectual, but necessary to prove the truth of a Doctrine, contrary to what was receyved before. Yea (Joan: 5.36.) Miracles are called, a greater testimony then John. (Marc: vlt:) they preached every where, our Lord working withal, and confirming the Word with signs that followed. (2. Cor: 12. V 12.) The signs of my Apostleship have been done upon you in all patience, and wonders and mighty deeds. (Hebr. 2.4.) God withal testifying by signs and wonders, and divers Miracles. But why do I urge this Point? You clearly confess it (Pag: 144. N. 31.) in these words; If you be so infallible, as the Apostles were, show it as the Apostles did. They went forth (saith S. Mark) and preached every where the Lord working with them, and confirming their words with signs following. It is impossible, that God should lie, and that the Eternal Truth should set his hand and seal to the confirmation of a falsehood, or of such doctrine as is partly true, and partly false. The Aposiles doctrine was thus confirmed, therefore it was entirely true, and in no part either false or uncertain. 10. Now, put these Truths together: Many and great Miracles have been wrought by professors of the Roman Religion, and particularly in confirmation of it; Miracles are undoubted Proofs 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 uncertain? Wherefore men desirous of their Eternal salvation, may say confidently with B. S. Austin (Lib: de Vtilit: credendi, Cap: 17.) Dubitabimus nos ejus Ecclesiae etc. Shall we doubt to rest in the bosom of that Church, which with the acknowledgement of mankind, hath obtained the height of Authority from the Apostolic Sea by Succession of Bishops, Heretics in vain barking about her, and being condemned, partly by the judgement of the people, partly by the gravity of Counsels, partly by the Majesty of Miracles? To which not to give the first place, is indeed either most great impiety, or precipitous arrogancy. 11. Behold the Notes of the true Church, Miracles, Succession of Bishops! Which perpetual Succession of Bishops, is the Ground and Foundation of the Amplitude, Propagation, Splendour, and Glory of the Church, promised by God, and foretold by the Prophets, as may be seen 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 Catholic Church, wherein alone those Promises are clearly fulfilled, fell either to be perplexed and doubtful of Christian Religion, or utterly to forsake it, and become Jews, or Turks. Such were Castalio, David Georg, Ochinus, Neuserus, Alemannus, and others, as may be seen exactly set down in Brierly, (Tract: 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 5.) 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 upon the Roman Church, and afford so many, forcible, and evident Reason's convincing Her to be the true Church, and yet that she should not be so indeed. For, such an error 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 afford to the contrary error, 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 speak very untruly, when you say (Pag: 377. N. 59) and in your Answer to the Direction (N. 8. and 14.) that we can pretend no proof for the Church, but some Texts; wherein you contradict even yourself, who (Pag: 66. N. 35.) say that our Faith, even of the foundation of all our Faith, our Church's Authority, is built lastly and wholly upon prudential Motives? If wholly upon prudential Motives, how do you so often tell us, that we build it only upon 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 us consider a little, whether your pretended Brethren the Protestants, can themselves avoid that, which you and they do so vehemently object to us. First then; They who profess to know the private spirit, cannot avoid a Circle, while they prove Scripture by that spirit, and that spirit by Scripture, by which alone, according to their Principles, they can try whether, or no it proceed from God. Whereof Ihave spoken heretofore. 15. Secondly; they who pretend to know the Scripture by certain internal criteria, or signs found in Scripture itself, as light, majesty, efficacy, or, as Potter speaks (Pag: 141.) a glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture, must fall into the same Circle with those men of the private spirit. For, seeing those criteria, which they fancy to themselves, are nor evident either to sense, or natural reason, they must be known by some other means, which can be none except some internal private spirit, or Grace within, as Potter expressly speaks (Pag: (141.) and (Pag: 142.) saith, There is in the Scripture itself, light sufficient, which the eye of Reason cleared by Grace, may discover to be Divine, descended from the Father and fountain of light. If then we ask these men, why they believe Scripture to be endued with such light, majesty, etc. seeing these things appear not evidently to any of our senses, nor to our understanding, as prima principia of natural Reason which are manifest of themselves; their Answer must be, that internal Gracen assures us thereof, and so this Grace is necessary, not only ex parte subjecti or potentiae, to assist our soul above our natural forces, in order to supernatural Objects; but it is the reason, motive, and medium ex parte objecti, for which we believe; for, other reason these men can give 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, whereby 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 upon the private spirit. Catholics, I grant, believe that the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is necessary for exercising an Act of Faith, but they require it only ex parte potentiae, to enable our understanding to assent to an object, represented and proposed by Motives sufficient to oblige us to an infallible Act, having for its principal and formal Object, the Divine Revelation, which Revelation and Motives, are adequately and perfectly distinguished from the said Assistance; as in proportion we believe by the virtue and strength of the Habit of Faith ex parte potentiae, but we do not believe for it, neither is it apprehended, or considered, or represented to our understanding, when we believe; but that which we apprehend, moves the Act of our understanding, is the reason and motive for which we believe; as also the faculty of our understanding is necessary for us to believe, and yet we do not believe for, but by it: And therefore Protestants avoid a Circle, as we evidently do. 16. Thirdly. As for you who profess to believe the Scripture for the Church, if you be free from an unprofitable Circle, we also, who receive and believe the Scripture for the Authority of the Church, are secured from it for the same reason; and therefore you must either acquit us, or condemn yourself; though you will never be able to be proved not guilty of untruth and injustice, in objecting to us alone, that very thing of which yourself are guilty. 17. But now, because in this Controversy about the Church, Protestants seek to make great use of a distinction between Fundamental, and not Fundamental Points, I must in the next Chapter say something thereof; that is, whereas Charity Maintained hath showed against Dr. Potter, the falsehood and impertinency of that distinction, as it is applied by Protestants; yea and that they contradict themselves therein; I will now endeavour to prove that notwithstanding all that you have written in defence of the Doctor, the Arguments of Charity Maintained remain in force, as also that you, in this matter contradict both Protestants, and yourself. CHAP. VI ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL POINTS OF FAITH. 1. THis Question concerning Fundamental and not Fundamental Points of Faith, is stated at large by Charity Maintained (Chap: 3. N. 2.) The sum is. Some Points are called Fundamental or necessary, because every one is obliged to know and believe them expressly, and explicitly; and Potter (Pag: 243.) speaking of some Points of Faith, saith; These are so absolutely necessary to all Christians, for attaining the End of our Faith, that is, the salvation of our souls; that a Christian may lose 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 Fundamental, for the contrary reason, that men may be ignorant of them, or not believe them explicitly, without sin and damnation; yet so, as they cannot, without a grievous sin, be rejected or denied, whensoever they are sufficiently represented to our understanding, as Thruths revealed by God. For, in that case they grow to be Fundamental, so far, as they cannot be denied without damnation. And in this sense, there is no distinction between Fundamental and not Fundamental Objects of Faith. Which is so evident, that Potter (Pag: 240.) says; It is Fundamental to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of God, whereof he may be convinced, that they are from God. And (Pag: 212.) he teaches, that such Points may not be denied or contradicted without Infidelity. This he saith, and this every one must say who understands the terms. For, to reject what one believes to be testified by God, is to think that he either deceives, or may be deceived, 2. But then, How comes it to pass, 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, seeing it is evident they contradict one another in many Points of Faith, wherein one side must deny a revealed Truth, which they confess to be damnable; how (I say,) come they to answer, not that those Points wherein they differ, are not sufficiently proposed to all of them as revealed by God, and so all of them may be excused by ignorance (which were a poor, and uncertain, and as it were a casual Answer, depending on particular circumstances of persons, capacities &c: for which no general Rule can be given, and they themselves often pretend some of them to err against Scripture, when it is no less evident in some not Fundamental, than it is in some Fundamental Points, and so ignorance cannot excuse them) but they are wont only to answer, that they agree in all Fundamental Points, though they differ in Points not Fundamental; placing the difference not in the different proposition of the Object, but in the nature, or weight of the Objects, or Articles themselves. For, if they speak of the proposal alone, they can put no difference betwixt not Fundamental and Fundamental Points; seeing no man can believe either kind of those Points, till they be sufficiently proposed, as Potter (Pag: 246. expressly saith: 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 Fundamental Point of Faith, and therefore sufficient proposal is necessary in Fundamental Articles. What then will Protestants finally answer? If they disagree in Fundamental Points, they differ in the substance of Faith, and in things necessary to salvation. If they differ in Points not Fundamental, yet sufficiently proposed, they differ also in things which Potter affirms to be Fundamental to a Christians Faith, and necessary for salvation. What then remains, but that they cannot be of the same substance of Faith, howsoever they answer? 3. We see then, how vain, false, disadvantageous and contradictory to Protestants themselves, this distinction is, as they apply it; seeing they must say, as we have proved, that error in Points not Fundamental is against the substance of Faith, and destructive of salvation, and yet that it is not such, in regard they affirm, that all of them may be saved, notwithstanding their errors in Points not Fundamental; which they cannot imagine to be possible, if an error in such Points be damnable, as we have heard Potter confess it to be, and you also acknowledge the same in a hundred places of your Book. 4. Yet for the present, let us have the patience to hear them say, that they agree in Fundamental Points, and therefore in the substance of Faith. But then every one who desires satisfaction in this matter, and hath no mind to be fed or rather fooled, with an empty sound of words in the air, cannot choose, but instantly demand, what those Fundamental 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 times with himself in Fundamental Points, unless it be known, what those Points be. What would it avail a sick person, to tell him, that there are some infallible remedies for his disease, if you cannot tell him what they are? Catholics have often, and earnestly, upon most just and necessary causes, urged Protestants to exhibit a Catalogue of Fundamental Points; and learned Protestants have endeavoured to give it; but with so great disagreement among themselves, and ill success for their purpose; that their pains proved advantageous to us Catholics alone, and shown that no such thing could be done; as appears by their disagreeing Catalogues, set down 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 Fundamental. 6. But in the mean time, what is your opinion? Or how do you defend Protestants, and yourself? In a very strange manner: Either by contradicting them, and plainly confessing, that no such Catalogue can possibly be given; or else by contradicting yourself, sometime saying, that one can be given, sometimes that it cannot. Sure I am, you give us 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 give a Catalogue of Fundamentals (because to some more is Fundamental, to others less, to others nothing at all) is impossible. And Pag: 166. N. 59 We know not precisely just how much is Fundamental. (And Pag: 134. N. 13.) that may be Fundamental and necessary to one, which to another is not so. Which variety of circumstances, makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals, and proves your request as reasonable, as if you should desire us to make a coat for the moon in all her changes. And (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 piece of business of it, and almost impossible, that he should be certain he hath done it, when he hath done it. And then it is apparently unnecessary to go about it. Are you not an excellent Advocate for the Protastants cause? Whose both say, and do, or endeavours, to set down a Catalogue of Fundamental Points you contradict; and make good in fact, (while you give us no such Catalogue,) and affirm 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 pains, will not seem to endeavour it. Their endeavours shown their judgement, of the great importance, and real necessity thereof. You perceaving the impossibility, are necessitated to say, it is not of importance, but needless. They in actu exercito; you in actu signato, show 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 believe, that Miracles are ceased, because they can work none: which if they had hope to do, they would soon change 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 shows in what desperate case they, and you are. But here I must by the way note a contradiction of yours. We have heard you say (Pag: 134. N. 13.) that may be Fundamental and necessary to one, which to an other is not so. Which is repugnant to what you say (Pag: 13●. N. 20.) Points Fundamental be those only which are revealed by God, and commanded to be preached to all, and believed by all. For if Fundamental Points be such only, as must be believed by all, it is clear, 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 Fundamental Doctrines we mean such Catholic 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 show, as I said, because who soever believes the Scripture, which is evident in all necessary Points, and in many which are not necessary, shall be sure to believe, all that is necessary, and more. 8. This evasion I have confuted already; yet in this particular fit occasion, I must not omit to say something. 9 First then in saying a Catalogue is needless, you contradict other Protestants, to whom I suppose you will defer so much, as to think their opinion not void of all probability, and consequently your owne not to be certain, 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 souls, deceiving 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 Book, you allege Casaubon saying, Existimat ejus Majestas etc. His Majesty judges, that the number of things absolutely necessary to salvation is not great, and therefore that there is not any more compendious way to make an agreement, than carefully to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary things, and that all endeavour be used to procure an agreement in things necessary. Do not these words signify, both a possibility and necessity of distinguishing between necessary and unnecessary Points? And yet we have heard you say, that it is both impossible, and unnecessary; in direct opposition to your Motto. And you say in your Epistle Dedicatory to the King, that your Book is in a manner nothing else but a superstruction upon that blessed Doctrine where with you have adorned and armed the frontispiece of your Book, and which was recommended by King James, as the only hopeful means, of healing the breaches of Christendom. A strange cure, by that means only, which you hold to be unnecessary, and impossible! And here, by occasion of mentioning Casaubon, I cannot omit to declare (for a warning to others) that I have it under the hand of a person of great quality, and integrity, that that unhappy man, finding himself in danger of death, dealt with the said worthy person, to procure the presence and help of a Catholic Priest: but his intention being discovered, or suspected, he was so besieged by his wife, and a Protestant English Minister, that it was not possible to be effected. A fearful example for all such as check, or choke the Inspirations of the holy Ghost, and procrastinate their conversion, till they find 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 Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental; or of even mentioning such a distinction; seeing in practise you cannot by any such description or distinction, know when they offer themselves in particular, and you are sure not to miss of them, by believing all that is clear in Scripture: Especially if we add your words (Pag: 23. N. 27.) That Protestants give you not a Catalogue of Fundamentals, it is not from Tergiversation, but from Wisdom 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 Fundamental as those that are. And yet all learned Protestants harp upon nothing more, than upon this distinction of Points Fundamental, and upon the definitions, or descriptions of them, as particularly, may be seen in your client Potter (Pag: 211.213.214.215.) which is a needless pains, if this your evasion be good, and solid. 11. Thirdly. Though one be obliged not to disbelieve any Truth revealed in Scripture, when it is known to be such, yet he is not bound to believe explicitly all such Truths. For, by this Fundamental and not fundamental points are distinguished, as Potter (P: 213.) saith: Fundamental properly is, that which Christians are obliged to believe by an express and actual 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 mind to believe 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 intolerable obligation) or none, (seeing I cannot tell in particular what they be which I am obliged to know) and so be in danger to be ignorant of fundamental Articles, without the actual and express knowledge whereof, I cannot be saved. And this difficulty is increased by the doctrine which you deliver (Pag: 195. N. 11.) That there is no Point to any man, at any time, in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same time, in the same circumstances, necessary to be believed. Seeing then no point of Scripture, can at any time, in any circumstances, be disbelieved, it is necessary at all times, in all circumstances, to be believed: And much more this must follow, if we cannot know what points be Fundamental, except by knowing every plain Text of Scripture: which, as I said, is an intolerable burden. 12. Fourthly; It imports very much to know summarily, and certainly, what points men are obliged to believe explicitly, that they may with more facility, application, and perfection, learn them, and not be diverted by things not necessary, with prejudice to the knowledge of Articles Fundamental, 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 have that form of Creed, by Tradition only, and according to your principles, we cannot believe any thing contained in the Creed, except we first know it to be contained in Scripture, from which if we cannot learn, what is Fundamental, and what is not, we cannot be certain that the particular points contained in the Creed. are Fundamental; nor can you learn out of any text of Scripture that the Creed contains all Fundamental 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 thereof, as I shown heretofore. Besides, if the Creed contain all Fundamental Points, why do you deny that it is possible to give such a Catalogue? Or if you say, that even in the Creed, it is impossible to determine precisely, what Points are Fundamental; my former Argument retains its force, that by this means, one cannot tell what he is chief to study and learn, nor what he is bound explicitly to believe in the Creed itself. Nay, since you can allege no precept out of Scripture, that all men are obliged to know and believe the Creed, the Creed of itself can be to you no rule at all, either for Fundamental; or not Fundamental Points, but still you are devolved to find in the whole Bible Fundamental Articles of Faith, mixed with Points not Fundamental; and so it avails Protestant's nothing, to allege the Creed as a summary of all Fundamental Points. Lastly Potter (Pag: 241.) holds it only for very probable, that the Creed contains all necessary Points, and yourself (Pag: 194. N. 4.) say of Potter: he affirmed it not as absolutely certain, but very probable; as also the Doctor pretends only, that all Articles of pure Faith, but not of practice are, contained in the Creed, and yet no man can be saved without believing all Fundamental points, whether they be purè credenda, or belong to practise; and therefore we must conclude, that to allege the Creed for solving this my Argument, can in no wise satisfy. 13. Fiftly; According to Protestants, we cannot be obliged to believe explicitly any Object, unless we find such an obligation evidently set down in Scripture: And if such an obligation be evidently expressed in Scripture, it follows, that you may give us a Catalogue of such Points: If not; you cannot burden men's consciences with such an obligation not expressed in Scripture. 14. Sixthly; I oppose yourself to yourself. (Pag: 149. N. 37.) You speak of Protestants in this manner: they ground their belief, that such and such things only are Fundamentals, only upon Scripture, and go about to prove their Assertion true, only by Scripture, then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things, or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing, that these only Points are Fundamental. Which words seem to signify, that Protestants can prove out of Scripture, that such and such things only are Fundamentals; and what is this, but to give a Catalogue, so exact, that they may not only say; these Points are Fundamental, but also that these only are such; that is, these, and neither more, nor fewer than these are Fundamental Articles? And (Pag: 150. N. 40.) You say: They (Protestants) may learn of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God, and from the Scripture that such Points are Fundamental, others are not so. And (Pag: 408. N. 35.) You tell Charity Maintained that he overreaches in saying that Protestants cannot agree what Points are Fundamental, 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 have no assured means, and rule how to do it? Also (Pag: 160. N. 53.) To these words of Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chap: 3. N. 19) Scripture doth deliver divine Truths, but seldom qualifyes them, or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation) You answer: Yet not so seldom, but that out of it I could give you an abstract of the essential parts of Christianity if it were necessary. What difference put you between an abstract of the Essential parts of Christianity, and a Catalogue of Fundamental Points? And how agrees this, with what we have heard you say (Pag: 166. N. 59) We know not precisely just how much is Fundamental. And (Pag: 23. N. 27.) You say; He that will go about to distinguish, what was written because it was profitable, from what was written because necessary, shall find an intricate piece of business of it, and almost impossible that he should be certain 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 give a Catalogue of Fundamentals, you say; For my part, I have 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 give a Catalogue of Fundamentals. 2. It is possible to give an abstract of the Essential parts of Christianity. 3. (Pag: 135. N. 14.) Perhaps we cannot exactly distinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary, from what is necessary consequently and accidentally, merely because it is revealed. 4. I suspect that it is neither necessary, nor profitable to give a Catalogue of Fundamental Points. 5. It is a business of extreme difficulty. 6. it is an intricate piece of business, and almost impossible that one should be certain 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 piece of business, a Possibility, an impossibility, an almost Impossibility, and finally, nothing certain but this, that in this most important matter of Fundamental Points, Protestants neither have, nor can have 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 Fundamental, but some affirm certain Points to be Fundamental Truths, which others believe to be Fundamental errors. But now in an other respect also, I oppose yourself to yourself. 15. Seaventhly; For I must upon occasion still put you in mind, of your doctrine, that it is not a material object of our Faith, to believe that Scripture is the word of God, and that men are not obliged to receive it for such, yea and that they may reject it. This supposed; it follows, that I am not obliged, yea that I cannot believe the contents of Scripture as divine Truths, whether they be Fundamental, or not Fundamental: And therefore by believing all that is evident in Scripture, I can in no wise be assured, to believe all Fundamental Truths. Besides, according to Protestants, men can know by Scripture only, that there are any such things as Fundamental Points of Faith, as yourself teach (Pag: 149. N. 37.) In these words; Protestants ground their belief, that such and such things only are Fundamentals, only upon Scripture, and go about to prove their Assertion true, only by Scripture. Seeing therefore you hold, that men are not obliged to believe Scripture, it follows, that you are not obliged to embrace that means by which alone you can attain the knowledge of Points either Fundamental or not Fundamental, and consequently de facto the means to know all Fundamental Points cannot be, to know and believe all that is evidently contained in Scripture. 16. Eightly; and chief; I have proved that all Points necessary to be believed, are not evidently contained in Scripture; and therefore by only believing all that is evident in Scripture, a man is not sure to attain, yea he is sure not to attain, the knowledge and belief of all necessary Points. But let us now see what you can object against us. 17. Object: 1. You say (Pag: 134. N. 13.) That, As, Charity Maintained (Chap: 3. N. 19) Being engaged to give a Catalogue of Fundamentals, instead thereof tells v● only in general, that all is Fundamental, and not to be disbelieved under pain of damnation, which the Church hath defined, without setting down a complete Catalogue of all things which in any. Age the Church has defined; so in reason we might think it enough for Protestants to say in general, that it is sufficient, for any man's salvation, to believe that the Scripture is true, and contains all things necessary for salvation; and to do his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it, without delivering any particular Catalogue of the Fundamentals of Faith. 18. Answer; 1. Charity Maintained was not any way engaged to give a particular Catalogue of Fundamental Points, as Protestants are, for the reasons which I have given; because without it, they cannot possibly know whether themselves, or their Brethren, or any Church at all believe all Articles necessary to salvation: Yet voluntarily Charity Maintained gave such a general Catalogue, as could not fail in bringing us to the knowledge of all particulars, in all occasions. For this cause he said; do here deliver a Catalogue, wherein are comprised all P●n●s by us taught to be necessary to salvation; &c: Which is most true, and puts a manifest difference between you and us, concerning the necessity of every man's being able to give a distinct Catalogue ofne●essary Points. For, seeing we believe an infallible Living Judge, 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 time be informed of all that is necessary, and much more, if we be so happy as to submit to such Information and Instruction. If I had one always at hand, who would and could (yean could not but) certainly instruct me, what I were to believe, or say, or do, were not all these actions in my power, no less than if I did not depend upon any such prompter? Charity Maintained had then reason to say, that in the Catalogue which he gave, all necessary Points were comprised, and this in a way no less easy, intelligible, and certain, then if we had before our eyes a Catalogue of all particular Points. For, our soul being disposed by this submission, and the Object proposed by such a Guide, we shall always find a Catalogue made to our hands, by the Goodness of God, and Ministry of the Church. For the contrary reason of not submitting to any Living Judge of Controversyes, Protestants cannot possibly be assured, whether, or not they believe all Fundamental Points; which, yourself confess, cannot be done except by knowing all evident Texts of Scripture, to which task no man can be obliged: To say nothing, that Scripture contains not all necessary Points, nor is sufficient to declare itself: Of which considerations I have spoken heretofore. And by this is answered, what you object (Pag: 160 and Pag: 161. N. 53.) Where you pretend to assign some general Catalogues, but such, as by means of them it is impossible to know particulars, as we may by that general one which Charity Maintained gave. Thus also is answered the Objection which you make (Pag: 158. N. 51. and Pag: 22. N. 27.) Where you demand of us a Catalogue of all the Definitions of the Church. For, we have told you, that it is sufficient for us, to be most certain, that the Church will not fail to instruct us of all her Definitions, Decrees, and whatsoever else is necessary, as occasion shall require, according to the several degrees of Articles more or less necessary, in different Circumstances; which Scripture alone cannot do, as hath been demonstrated. 19 Object: 2. (Pag: 159. N. 52.) You say touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works, and Faith in Christ jesus, the Son of God, and Saviour of the World, all Protestants agree: And therefore we cannot deny, but that they agree about all that is simply necessary. 20. Answer. What? Have we now a Catalogue of All that is simply necessary, and yet a Catalogue of necessary or Fundamental points cannot be given? 2. If these be All the Points which are simply necessary; why do you so often exclaim against Charity Maintained, for saying, that confessedly the Church of Rome believes all that is simply necessary? For, you grant (Pag: 34. N. 5.) and else where, that we believe those Points. 21. 3. I desire you to consider, that Fundamental Points are those, which we are bound to believe actually and expressly, and as Potter saith (Pag: 243.) are so absolutely necessary to all Christians, for attaining the End of our Faith, that is, the salvation of our souls; that a Christian may lose himself not only by a positive erring in them: but by a pure ignorance, or nescience, or not knowing of them. Now if one cannot be saved, without explicit and actual knowledge of these Points, he cannot have true Repentance without actual dereliction of the contrary errors, and express belief of such Points, in which. Ignorance cannot excuse; and you say (Pag: 15. N. 29.) Error against a Truth, must needs presuppose a nescience of it; And that Error and ●gnorance must be inseparable. Therefore whosoever errs in such Points, loses himself by such an Error, seeing even a pure ignorance cannot excuse him, and consequently he cannot be saved without actually relinquishing such an Error, and embracing the contrary Fundamental Truth, and so cannot be sure, that he hath true Repentance, unless he know in particular what Truths and Errors are Fundamental. And you deliver a very pernicious Error, in saying; (Pag: 159, N. 52.) whosoever dies with Faith in Christ, and contrition for all sins known and unknowen (in which heap, all his si full Errors must be comprised) can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent Error, then S. Paul by the Viper which he shaken of into the fire. For, if he remain in his Error about Fundamental Points, he wants the contrary actual explicit 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 Error then, which is supposed to be Fundamental, must be known to him (and being known to be an Error, eo ipso, it is rejected, since our understanding cannot assent to a known falsehood) and therefore cannot be comprised in the heap of sinful Errors known and unknowen, but must be distinctly known, and forsaken. 22. How can you say, that all Protestants agree touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works, and Faith in Christ jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the world? They may agree in the words or Grammatical signification of them, as any boy, Turk, Jew, or Infidel, could not but do, if they understood the tongue, wherein those words were set down. But for the sense, you could scarcely have picked out Articles of greater moment, and withal less agreed on among Protestants; since every word discovers their irreconciliable differences concerning them: and yet (which is well to be observed) they concern points of practice, and things absolutely necessary to salvation, as we have heard you confess, and therefore an error in them, is damnable without all remedy. 23. Let us cast an eye upon every word. Repentance. Protestants are not agreed wherein true Repentance consists, as may be seen 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 time, and cannot be performed in an instant; and what sinner, though repenting himself never so heartily at the hour of his death, can be saved with this your kind of Repentance, which at that hour is an impossible thing? From dead works. What will you understand by dead works? You know, many chief Protestants hold, all our best works to be of themselves not only dead, but deadly sins; and so Repentance of dead works must signify, Repentance that ever we have done any good, that we have believed, hoped, and loved God and our neighbour, obeyed our Parents, kept any of the Commandments &c: And if you consider the person from whom they proceed; in case he be predestinated, no sin can hurt him whatsoever he do: To the former, Repentance is needless; to the latter, fruitless. How then do Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead works, or in Repentance itself? For the second Point (Faith in Christ jesus, the Son of God and Saviour of the world) there is not one word wherein 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 infallible; and therfory you cannot be saved by your kind of Faith, even by the doom of Protestants; and in that respect, all men who have care of their souls, aught to detest your Doctrine and Book. 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 whereby one believes certainly, that his sins are forgiven, and that they are forgiven even by believing so; according to which Doctrine, what necessity can there be of Repentance? Seeing men are justified precisely by such a Faith: and how then did you tell us, that Protestants agree in the necessity of Repentance from dead works? Of which strange kind of Faith, He whom you call the learned Grotius in his Discussio Riveriani Apologetici &c: (Pag: 2●0.) saith very truly: Evangelij vox haec est: Resipiscite: Facite fructus dignos Poenetentiae: adhortamini vosmetipsos per singulos dies, donec hodie nominetur, ut 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 Protestant's disagree in these points? You Socinians absolutely deny Christ Jesus to be the Son of God and Consubstantial to his Father, and Potter (Pag: 113.114.) citys the doctrine of some whom he terms men of great learning and judgement, that all who profess to love, and honour jesus Christ, are in the Visible Christian Church, and by Catholics to be reputed Brethren. One of these men of great learning and judgement cited by Potter is Thomas Morton, who (in his Treatise of the Kingdom of Israel) teaches, that the Churches of Arians (who denied our Saviour Christ to be God) are to be accounted the Church of God, because they hold the Foundation of the Gospel, which is Faith in jesus Christ the Son of God and saviour of the world. Which are your very words: Wherein appears your hypocrisy, in calling. Christ the Son of God, which men will conceive you understand as all good Christians do (that he is consubstantial to his Father) whereas you mean only, as the Arians did, that he was the Son of God, by conjunction of will, or some such accidental way; and so Protestants do not, agree in a point: simply necessary (Saviour of the world▪) For, Socinians deny Christ to have satisfied for the sins of the world, as may be seen 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 we tell them, that such our satisfaction depends on, and takes all its valve from his. You are an excellent advocate for Potter seeing you differ from him in this Point, which (Pag: 242.) he calls that most, important and most Fundamental of all Articles in the Church that jesus 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 Fundamental error, that you cannot both be saved, though you were inculpably ignorant of it, as we have seen out of Potter, (Pag: 243.) even concerning this particular Article. And now I pray you consider this agreement of Protestants in the foresaid Articles of Repentance, and Faith in Christ jesus 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 Physicians should find them differing in opinion about it, some of them telling him, that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary; some, that only some of them were necessary, the rest only profitable, and requisite ad melius esse, lastly some, that some only were necessary, some profitable, and the rest superfluous, yet not hurtful; yet all with one accord agreeing in this, that the whole receipt hid in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if he made use of it, he should infallibly find it successful; what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health? Iust so, these Protestant Doctors with whose discords you make such Tragedies, agreeing in These thus far, that the Scripture evidently contains all things necessary to salvation, and that whosoever believes it, and endeavours to find the true sense of it, and to conform his life unto it, shall certainly perform all things necessary to salvation, and undoubtedly be saved; what matters it for the divection of men to salvation, though they differ in opinion touching what Points are absolutely necessary, and what not? 25. Answer. You Socinians, who adore natural reason, and take pleasure in being esteemed considering men, are much delighted in proposing similitudes, which make a fair show, and may seduce the ignorant; but being examined, prove nothing against any, except yourselves. First; This similitude can prove nothing, unless you beg the Question, and suppose one receipt to have in it all things necessary for the recovery of the diseased man's health; that is, Scripture to contain all Points necessary to salvation, which you know we deny, and say you err in Thesi. If with Scripture, you would join the Tradition, and Definitions of the Church, your suppositions were true, and your parity good; Otherwise your receipt cannot have all necessary ingredients. 26. Secondly: Suppose the sick man had great reason to believe, that the ground upon which the Physicians build their opinion and agreement, were not good, nor such as he had any obligation at all to credit, what sick man, if he were also wise, could judge their agreement to be sufficient, for an undoubted direction to the recovery of his health? Hear then, (as in other several occasions) I must put you in mind of your doctrine, that we are not bound to believe, as an Object of our Faith, Scripture to be the word of God, but that we may reject it. What then avails it me, towards the belief of such or such Points, that they are evident in Scripture, if I do not believe Scripture itself? 27. Thirdly: Suppose the ingredients were very sovereign and sufficient in themselves, but that it were not in the sick man's power to procure them, were the speculative agreement of the Physicians sufficient for his recovery? So here. It is impossible for most men to know all evident texts of scripture, which yet, according to your grounds, must make up that number of Truths, wherein one shall be sure to find all Fundamental Points; and so the agreement of Protestants, that all necessary Truths are evidently contained 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 sin be ignorant of necessary Points, which he can be certain to know, only by knowing absolutely all clear places of Scripture, and so be damned for want of believing some Point absolutely necessary necessitate medij; which is a plain contradiction, that some Points should be necessary to salvation, and yet that we are not bound to attain the knowledge of them; or that the End, which is the knowledge of such Points, should be necessary, and the only means to attain 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 means to know all Fundamental Points; as in your example, if a sick man were obliged to procure the recovery of his health, he must be obliged to make use of that receipt which alone could be effectual in order to that end. 28. Fourthly: Suppose I could not take such a receipt, without danger of drinking poison, together with the wholesome ingredients, your similitude which goes upon the contrary supposition, doth clearly prove 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 choose, but by occasion of reading Scripture alone, fall into many errors against some Divine Revelation, delivered either in Scripture, or by Tradition; that is, in the written or unwritten word of God; as we see by experience of old and new Heretics, and particularly by the dissensions of Protestants, whereof some must needs contradict some Truth delivered in God's Word, either by detracting, from, or by adding, to the true sense thereof. Now in divets places you affirm, that every error contrary to any revealed Truth, is in its own nature damnable without Repentance; and you add (Pag: 158. N. 52.) that for the most, part, men are betrayed into errors, or k●●t in them by their fault, or vice, or passion: And therefore the true Conclusion will be, that men presuming to read and interpret Scripture by their own wit, without dependence on the Church, aught to conceive, that they expose themselves to certain danger, of erring against some Divine Truth or Revelation; that is, to a thing in itself damnable: Neither can they hope for any help from Sectaryes, whom they see infinitely divided among themselves: And if they take such men for their Physicians, some of them will affirm some ingredients to be necessary or profitable, which others will swear to be rank poison; and so every Protestant is left to himself, and a particular Catalogne of Fundamentals is necessary for every one. All which is strongly confirmed, by calling to mind, that even the most learned Protestants, have no certain Rule for interpreting Scripture. Your supposition therefore in the consult of Physicians, that in the receipt, of which they spoke, though perhaps there might be some ingredients superfluoous, yet not hurtful, cannot be applied against us, but retorted upon yourself; that as in case the whole receipt did contain some things hurtful, no man could in conscience take it; so 〈◊〉 being in danger of falling into damnable errors, by occasion of interpreting Scripture, without dependence or relation to an infallible Guide, cannot without manifest danger of their souls hope to find all necessary Points of Faith in Scripture alone, and therefore must resolve to seek a Living Guide, the true Church of God; which they shall be sure to find, if they seek, with great instance, constancy, and humility. 59 Out of what hath been said in this Chapter, these Corollaryes, are evidently doduced: That, there are certain Fundamental Articles of Faith, which unless a man believe actually and explicitly, he cannot have the substance of Faith, nor can any Congregation be a true Church, nor can there be any hope of salvation; as all, both Catholics and Protestants, affirm; That unless there be some Means to be assured, what those Fundamental Articles are, none can be certain, that they have 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 means which Mr. Chillingworth hath invented for being sure not to miss of them, is neither sufficient, nor possible; That indeed it is not possible for Protestants to assign any such Catalogue; That Catholics 〈◊〉 a most certain, and infallible way, to know such Points, and all other Truths, as occasion shall require, by submitting to a Living Judge of Controversyes: And therefore, That none can be sure, that he hath true Faith, is a member of the true Church, or is in possibility to be saved, unless he believe, profess, and obey such an Infallible Judge, the One, always existent, Visible Church of God. From which Truth, this other evidently follows; That whosoever divide themselves from the Communion of that true Church, are guilty of the grievous sin of Schism. And that Protestants have done so, shall be demonstrated in the next Chapter. CHAP: VII. PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY OF THE SIN OF SCHISM. 1. THE Title of this Chapter having been made good at large by Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chap: 5.) against all that Dr. Potter could invent, in Defense of Protestants: If now I can confute whatsoever you allege in Defence of the Doctor; the Arguments and Reasons of Charity Maintained must in all right be adjudged to keep their first possession, and this Truth remain constant; That Protestants, and all others who separate themselves from the Roman Church, must needs be found guilty of the grievous sin of formal Schism. 2. In the beginning Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chapt: 5. N. 4.) lays this ground; That the Catholic Church signify One Congregation of Faithful people, and therefore implies not only Faith to make them Faithful Believers, but also Communion, or common union, to make them One in Charity, which excludes Separation and Division, or Schism. This is a very evident and certain Truth; and therefore Tertulian (de Praescrip: Cap. 41.) observes it as a property of heretics, that they communicate with all. Pacem quoque passim cum omnibus miscent. Nihil enim interest illis, licèt diversa tractantibus, dum ad unius veritatis expugnationem conspirent. Thus we see Protestants, will needs call all Brethren, who are not Papists. Yea many will not have Papists make a Church distinct from them. S. Austin was of an other mind from Protestants; who (de Uera Relig: Cap: 5.) condemns 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 principal point of man's salvation, that there is not an other Philosophy, that is, study of wisdom, and an other Religion, when they, whose Doctrine we approve not, communicate not in Sacraments with us. Which Truth S. Austin judges to be of so great valve, and necessity, and the contrary so pernicious, as he avoucheth. Si hoc unum tantum vitium Christianâ disciplinâ sanatum videremus ineffabili laude praedicandam esse neminem negare oporteret. And (Lib: 19 cont. Faust: Cap: 11,) he saith: Men cannot be joined into any name of Religion, true or false, unless they be linked with some sign or fellowship of visible Sacraments; Therefore Communion in Sacraments, is essentially necessary to unite the members of One Church, and distinguish it from all other. In this manner, (Act: 2. 42. it is said 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 Doctors are wont to understand by the Church, (which oftentimes they call Catholic) the whole Society of Christian Churches, Orthodox, and sound in Faith, united together in Communion: and they oppose this Church to the Societyes of Schismatics, and Heretics, which we will not reject. By which words it appears; That the Holy Fathers, and even Protestants, make unity in Communion, against Schism, no less essential 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 essential to the Church. 3. The reason of this Truth is very clear. For, without Communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and public worship of God, the true Church cannot be distinguished essentially from any Schismatical congregation: Because seeing Schismatiks, as they are distinguished from Heretics, cannot be distinguished by a different Faith, wherein they are supposed to agree with Catholics, they can be distinguished, only by external Communion; which therefore must be essential to the Church, as being the thing which alone formally and essentially excludes Schism S. Austin speaks excellently to this purpose (Epist: 48.) You are with us in Baptism, in the Creed, in the rest of God's Sacraments: in the spirit of unity, in bond of peace, finally in the very Catholic Church you are not with us. Which words declare, that the spirit of unity, and bond of peace, are necessary and essential to constitute men members of One Church. All agree, that to be one Church, there must be unity in Faith; and seeing Faith is ordained to the salvation of souls, (1. Pet: 1.9.) by the true worship of God; unity in this worship is no less necessary, than unity in Faith. The Militant true Church of Christ is a visible congregation; and therefore doth essentially require visible signs to distinguish it from all other companies, by Sacraments, external worship of God, and a public Liturgy: which if you take away, you destroy the unity of the Church. For, a Division of that which is essential, is a plain destruction. Protestants teach, the true preaching of the word, and due administration of Sacraments to be so essential to the Church, that without them a Church ceases to be a Church: therefore 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 settled; 4. The first reason which Charity Maintained (Chap: 5. Part: 1. N. 12.) alleges to prove his Assertion, is this; Schism consists essentially in leaving the external 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 say of other Protestants: it follows that they cannot be excused from Schism. 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 Maintained confutes, by willing him to consider, that for the present we speak not of Heresy, or departing from the Church, but of Schism, of leaving her external Communion; which manifestly they did, by separating from all Churches, and consequently from the Universal Church, which is the most formal sin of Schism. And indeed they ought to infer, that the Universal Church is not subject to any error in Doctrine, and not tell the world, that they forsook her Communion for her Errors; seeing her Communion is never to be forsaken; and therefore it is not possible, that she can give any cause of such a separation by falling into error. This we learn of S. Austin (Cont: Parm: Lib: 2. Chap 11.) There is no just necessity to divide Unity. And (Ep: 48.) It is not possible that any may have 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 upon just cause. And S. Irenaeus (Cont: Heres: Lib: 4. C 62.) They can not make any so important reformation, as the evil of the Schism is pernicious 6. Secondly: Charity Maintained proves them to be Schismatics, by this Argument. Potter teaches, that the Catholic Church, cannot err in points of Faith, Necessary to salvation; and therefore it cannot be damnable to remain in her Communion, although she were falsely supposed to teach some Errors, seeing they cannot be damnable, and consequently cannot yield any necessary cause to leave her Communion; but it is clear, that Luther, and the rest, left the whole universal Church, which was extant before them, under pretence of Errors, which cannot be Fundamental; Therefore it is clear, they left Her without any necessary cause. Which I confirm by your own words, (Pag: 220. N. 52.) where you say; May it please you now at last to take notice, that by Fundamental, we mean all, and only that which is necessary; and then I hope you will grant, that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamental to salvation; unless 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 fail of salvation? Therefore, say I, seeing the Church universal cannot err in necessary Points, whosoever embraceth her Faith, for as much as belongs to Faith, cannot fail of salvation, unless you will say, that more is necessary, then that which is necessary, which are your own words: You say also (Pag: 33. N. 4.) If a particular man or Church may hold some particular Errors, and yet be a member of the Church universal; why may not the Church hold some universal Error, and yet be shell the Church? This parity is none at all: yet seeing you must make it good, I may say much more with all truth, and without any dependence upon your false parity; if the Church universal may hold some universal Error, (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 errors, and yet be a member of the Church universal; and consequently capable of salvation for as much as concerns his Faith? And therefore none can forsake the Church by leaving her Communion, and making himself no member of Her, for any such errors as are not opposite to a necessary Truth, into which kind of errors, 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 undetermined, and yet in the mean while men be saved, why should, or how can the Churches being furnished with effectual means to determine all Controversyes in Religion, be necessary to salvation, the end itself, to which these means are ordained, being as experience shows, not necessary? O, how truly may we say; (and happy had your progenitors been, if they had done so) If for so many; Ages before Luther's pretended Reformation, but true Schism, men wrought Miracles, converted Nations, were eminent for Sanctity, attained salvation, and are esteemed Saints in Heaven by our Adversaries; and this in the belief and profession of those Points, which Catholics now profess, how could any Reformation, or separation, be necessary, since the end itself of salvation, to which all means are ordained, was not necessary, but was attained without any such Reformation or separation? 7. Like to this Argument of Charity Maintained is another which (N. 22.) he took from these words of Potter, (Pag: 155.) It is comfort enough for the Church, that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers, and conserve her on earth against all enemies; 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 capital dangers, why were not the first pretended reformers content with enough, but rend the Church, out of a pernicious greedyness of more then enough, or a pretended desire to free men from all error, which cannot be hoped for out of Heaven? If even the universal Church may not hope to triumph over all Error, till she be in Heaven, much less can particular Churches, and men, conceive any such hope, and so you must either grant, that Errors not Fundamental, cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Church's Communion, or you must affirm, that all Churches may and aught 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 avoiding errors not Fundamental. Besides, as it is not lawful to leave the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners, because we cannot in this life hope to triumph over all sin, as Potter speaks; so neither can her Communion be forsaken, for Errors not Fundamental, seeing the Doctor saith also, that the Church may not hope to triumph over all Errors. 8. Another Argument Charity Maintained (N. 25.) took from these words of Potter (Pag: 75.) There neither was, nor can be, any just cause to departed from the Church of Christ; no more than from Christ himself. But to departed from a particular Church, and namely from the Church of Rome, in some Doctrines and Practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. Mark what he saith. There can be no cause to departed from the Church of Christ, and yet he teaches, that the Church of Christ, the universal Church, may err in Points not Fundamental; therefore errors in Points not Fundamental, cannot be judged a sufficient and just cause to departed from the universal Church; and for the same reason, if the errors of the Roman Church be supposed to be not Fundamental, there can be no just cause to departed from Her: But here he expressly speaks upon supposition that the Roman Church wanted nothing necessary to salvation, and consequently, that she did not err in Fundamental Points; therefore there could be no cause to forsake Her. And that Potter affirms absolutely in other passages of his Book, that the Roman Church doth not err in Fundamental Articles, shall be demonstrated hereafter; and consequently, that he contradicts himself, in saying, the universal Church cannot be forsaken, and yet that there might be just and necessary cause to forsake the Church of Rome, which errs only in Points not Fundamental, as he holds the universal Church may err: to say nothing for the present, That Luther did forsake all Churches, which is to forsake the universal 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 avoid the just imputation of Schism: and it is, because they acknowledge 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, clears us from the imputation of Schism, 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 Maintained, as a strange Doctrine, that men should be Schismatiks in forsaking a Church, which they judge to want something that is necessary to salvation; and that they should be excused from Schism, who forsake her, and yet profess that she hath all things necessary to salvation; as if a man should think it a sufficient excuse for his rebellion, to allege, that he held the Person against whom he rebelled, to be his Lawful Sovereign: And Dr. Potter thinks himself free from Schism, because he forsook the Church of Rome, but yet so, as that still he held her to be a true Church, and to have all necessary means to salvation. But I will no further urge this most solemn foppery, and do much more willingly put all Catholics in mind, what an unspeakable comfort it is, that our Adversaries are forced to confess, that they cannot clear themselves from Schism, otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not, nor cannot cut off from the hope of salvation our Church. Which is as much as if they should in plain terms say: They must be damned, unless we may be saved. Moreover this evasion, doth indeed condemn your Zealous Brethren of Heresy, for denying the Church's perpetuity, but doth not clear yourself from Schism, 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 Fundamental Articles. For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation, and so condemn yourself of Schism. And lastly, even according to this your own definition of Schism, you cannot clear yourself from that crime, unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions. For, if you do not cut us off from the Body of Christ, and the Hope of salvation; how come you to say (Pag. 20.) that you Judge a reconciliation with us to be damnable? And (Pag: 75.) that to departed from the Church of Rome, there might be just and necessary cause, And (Pag: 79.) That they that have the understanding and means to discover their error, and neglect to use 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 Schism, to cut off from the Hope of salvation the Church from which it separates, how will you clear yourself from Schism, who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure? And who affirm, that a reconciliation with us is damnable? But the truth is, there is no constancy in your Assertions, by reason of difficultyes which press you on all sides, For, you are loath to affirm clearly, that we may be saved, lest 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 affirm that our Church erred in points Fundamental, or necessary to salvation, you know not how, nor where, nor among what Company of men, to find a perpetual Visible Church of Christ before Luther. And therefore your best shift is, to say, and unsay, as your occasions command. I do not examine the Doctors Assertion, that it is the property of Schism to cut of from the Body of Christ, the Church from which it separates; wherein he is mistaken, as appears by his own example of the Donatists, who were formal and proper Heretics (as he affirms, because they denied the perpetuity of God's Church, which he saith, is in its nature a formal Heresy, against the Article of our Creed, I believe the Catholic Church) and not schismatics, as Schism is a vice distinct from Heresy. Besides, although the Donatists and Luciferians (whom he also alleges) had been mere Schismatiks; yet it were against all good Logic, from a particular to infer a general Rule, to determine what is the property of Schism. Thus far Charity Maintained. And indeed this might seem a good Argument; The Church of Rome wants something necessary to salvation, Therefore it is lawful and necessary to forsake Her; but not this. We have forsaken the Church of Rome, but yet so, as we believe she wants nothing necessary to salvation; Therefore we are not Schismatics. 11. A third devise Potter hath to clear Protestants from Schism, saying; (Pag: 75.) There is a great difference between a Schism from them, and a Reformation of ourselves. But this (saith Charity Maintained N. 29.) is a subtlety, by which all Schism and sin may be excused. For, no body can intent evil, but for some motive of Virtue profit, or pleasure. And since their pretended reformation did consist, as they gave out, in forsaking the corruptions of the Roman Church, the Reformation of themselves, and their Division from us, fall out to be one and the self same thing: and so if it was not lawful to forsake us, it was not lawful to reform themselves by forsaking us. Besides, we see, the they disagree infinitely in the particulars of their pretended Reformation, and therefore the thing upon which their first thoughts did pitch, was not any particular Model, or Idea of Religion, but a conceit, that their most necessary, and, as I may say, immediate Reformation, did consist in forsaking the Roman Church. 12. An other argument (Charity Maintained, N. 35.) sets down 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 cannot be said to have divided herself from him, before whose time 〈◊〉 was, and in comparison of whom she was a whole, and he but a Part: therefore we must say, that he divided himself, and went out of her; which is to be a schismatic, or Heretic, or both. By this Argument, Optatus Milevitanus proveth, that not Caecilianus, but Parmenianus was a schismatic, saying, (Lib: 1. cont: Parmen:) For, Caecilianus went not out of Majorinus they Grandfather, but Majorinus from Caecilianus: neither did Caecilianus departed from the Chair of Peter, or Cyprian, but Majorinus, in whose Chair thou sittest, which had no beginning before Majorinus. Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner, it is clear that you are heirs both of the deliverers up (of the Holy Bible to be burned) and also of schismatics. 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 schismatics; but not those from whom they depart: That to forsake the Chair of Peter is Schism; yea, that it is Schism to erect a Chair which had no origin, or as it were predecessor, before itself: That to continue in a division begun by others, is to be heirs of Schismatiks; and lastly; that to departed from the Communion of a particular Church (as that of S. Cyprian was) is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schism, and consequently, that although the Protestants, who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church, do think by that Heresy to clear Luther from Schism, in disobeying the Pope: Yet that will not serve to free him from Schism, as it importeth a division from the obedience, or Communion of the particular Bishop, Diocese, Church, and Country, where he lived. Thus Charity Maintained. 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 ordained Majorinus in the Chair upon which by succession thou art set. The matter therefore to be r, consider 〈◊〉, which of the two parties has remained in the root with the ●●●le world? Which of them went out? Which of them is set upon a new Chair which heretofore was not in being? Which of them has raised an Altar against an Altar? Which of them made an Ordination during the life time of him who was before ordained? Lastly which of them is obnoxious to the sentence of S. John the Ap●●●e, who foretold that many Antichrists would go out of the Church? 13. In confirmation of this Argument, we may allege Dr. Andrew's (Respons: add Epist: 1. Molinaei Pag: 171.) commending Molinaeus in condemning Aërius for opposing the consent of the universal Church. The words of Molinaeus were, quoth in re pridem & ubique 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 universal. In like manner we have heard Dr. Taylor (Pag. 327.) saying, That to separate from the Bishops makes a man at least a Schismatic. And (Pag: 329.) that it is also Heresy. Now who does not see, that the first Protestants did separate themselves from all Bishops, and therefore must be both schismatics, and Heretics? Let men therefore pretend as much as they please, to shed tears, and be ready even to shed their blood for procuring unity amongst Christians; their thoughts, and endeavours will be in vain, unless they resolve to return to that Body from which they separated themselves, and being but parts, made a Division from the Whole. A truth so clear; that even the wisest of our adversaries acknowledge it; and in particular, one of the most erudite, eloquent, experienced, and learned Protestants, Hugo Grotius, confesses that Union cannot be hoped for in the Church, except by being conjoined with those who are United with the Sea of Rome. His words are these, (Rivetiani Apologetici Discuss: Pag: 255.) Restitutionem Christianorum in unum 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, Protestants nullo inter se communi Ecclesiastico regimine sociantur: quae causae sunt, cur factae parts in unum Prótestantium corpus colligi nequeant, imò & cur parts aliae atque aliae sint exsurrect urae. Quare nunc planè ita sentit Grotius, & multi cum ipso, non posse Protestants interse jungi, nisi simul jungantur cum ijs, qui Sedi Romanae coherent; sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen. Ideo optat, ut 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 unitatem. Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subijcere Pontificis libidine, sed reponere ordinem, sapienter institutum. 14. And this Argument drawn from the grievous sin and deformity of a Part in forsaking the whole, was of force to move that bold and obdurate hart of Luther in the midst of his full cups, and sensual pleasures; and I beseech all Protestants for the love they bear to that sacred ransom of their souls, the Blood of our Blessed Saviour, attentively to ponder, and unpartially to apply to their own 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: private: Fol: 244.) did my trembling heart beat within me, and reprehending me object against me that most strong argument? Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds err? 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 saith: Dost thou who art but One, and of no account, take upon thee so great matters? What, if thou, being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all (Mark all) to err, why may he not permit thee to err? To this belong those Arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Counsels, the Customs, the multitudes and greatness of wise men: Whom do not these Mountains of Arguments, these clouds, yea these seas of examples overthrow? And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soul, that he often wished and desired that he had (Colloq: mensal: Fol: 158.) never begun this business: wishing yet further, that his Writings were burned, and buried (Praefat: in Tom: German: Jen:) in eternal oblivion. 15. Another Argument to prove 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 far different from his, and divided themselves from him, must be reputed Schismatiks: and, the like Argument may proportionably be applied 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 errors of the Roman Church, a reconciliation is impossible and damnable. And yet he teaches, as I show elswere, that their difference from the Roman Church, is not in Fundamental points: and therefore seeing Protestant's differ in Points, at least not Fundamental, a reconciliation between them must be impossible and damnable. Which yet may be further proved out of Potter, who (Pag: 69.) confesseth, that even among Protestants, the weeds, thistles, tares, and cockle, are not perfectly taken away, nor every where alike. Now I ask, whether by reason of these weeds, protestants must separate from one another, or no? If they must, there will be no end of Schisms, 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 errors or weeds, it was not lawful for them to divide themselves from us; unless they will return to say, that Protestants are obliged to separate both from Catholics, and from one another; making endless Schisms and Divisions, not only lawful, but necessary. For which Chilling worth opens a fair 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 us that part of this corruption might not get in, and prevail in the 〈◊〉 or 4. or 3. or 2. age? What is this but to say, that in those primitive ages, for aught we know, men were obliged to forsake the Communion of the universal 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 schismatics, for opposing the Church, and that it will never be proved, that Protestants oppose any Declaration of the Catholic Church, and therefore are unjustly charged either with schism or Heresy. But M. Doctor, I beseech you inform us, whether Luther and his followers, did not oppose the doctrines and declarations of all Churches extant before them: and consequently of the universal Church? And therefore you are justly charged both with Schism and Heresy according to your own ground. 17. Other Arguments Charity Maintained alleges, of which we shall have occasion to treat hereafter. 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. schismatics for such their division from her Communion. And because some Protestants are wont to produce certain persons, as members of their Church; harity Maintained demonstrates, that the Grecians, Waldenses, Wickless, Huss, Muscovites Armenians, Georgians, cannot be of the same Church with Protestants: and therefore that Luther and his followers opposed the doctrine, and separated themselves from the Communion of all Christian Churches, which cannot be done without Schism and Heresy, unless men have a mind to deny that there are any such sins as Schism, and Heresy. And here I must not omit, that Chillingworth thought it not wisdom to answer the discourse of Charity Maintained proving that the aforesaid people, Waldenses, Wickleff &c: were Protestants, but dissembles that matter. A sign, that he judged those vulgar allegations of Protestants to be wholly false, and impertinent! 18. Now then, we having proved, that Potter's evasions cannot clear Protestants from Schism, we must examine what you can say; whose answers being confuted, this truth will remain firm: Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schism. 19 Your main and capital answer consists in three propositions, set down (Pag: 264. And 265. N. 30. 3●.32.) That not every separation, but only a causeless separation from the external communion of any Church, is the sin of Schism. That imposing upon men under pain of excommunication a necessity of professing known errors, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation: And that this is the cause which Protestants allege to justify their separation from the Church of Rome. That to leave the Church, and to leave the external communion of a Church, at least as Dr. Potter understands the words, is not the same thing: That being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to have 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 public 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 Eton, written to a private friend of his, as I am most credibly informed, by a Person well known, to them both, at that time, and who saw the letter itself: And further affirms of his own certain knowledge, that Mr. Hales was of a very inconstant judgement, one year, for example, doubting of, or denying, the Blessed Trinity, the next year, professing, and adoring the same. The substance of all consists in the first; That only a causeless separation from the external communion of any church, is the sin of Schism. For if you ask the cause excusing from Schism their separation from us, he will answer: The Church was corrupted, and it is not lawful to communicate with any Church in her corruptions. This, I say, is his main ground, with which his other Momorandums must stand, or fall. For if either the Church cannot err, or else her errors and corruptions be not such, as can yield just cause to leave her external communion, the Prelates of God's Church, may impose upon man, under pain of excommuniation, a necessity to remain in her communion, and by Ecclesiastical censures, oblige them to do that, which otherwise they are by divine Law most strictly obliged to perform: And further, if the separation be causeless, the separatists from the external communion of the Church do jointly leave the Church, either by professing a different Faith, or denying obedience, both to the Church, and to God, who commands us 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 external communion of any Church, is the sin of Schism. Yourself 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 unnecessary, and untrue remembrances? But necessity hath not Law. You cannot give any reason why you leave us, and yet why Protestant's must not leave one another (since it is clear that they in disagree Points at least not fundamentall) and therefore 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 principal reason of your not communicating with us. A pretty congruity! the cause is all in all, and yet is not the principal reason &c. 21. Now, to that pretended main ground of yours; It is not lawful to profess known errors, or practise known corruptions; I say, That either we may consider what is true in itself, or what in good consequence follows from the principles of Protestants, and in particular of Potter and Chillingworth, or, as the Logicians speak, ad hominem, which are two very differenr considerations; and yet by the assistance of God's holy grace, I will show, that according to both of them Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schism. 22. For the first; It is most true in itself, that in no case it can ever be lawful to dissemble, Equivocate, or Lie, in matters of Faith, and he shall be denied in Heaven, who in that manner denies God on earth. But, as I began to say above, from this very ground we prove, that the Church cannot err in such matters. For, seeing all Fathers, Antiquity, and Divines, have hitherto proclaimed with a most unanimous consent, that to forsake the external communion of God's Visible Church, is the sin of Schism; it follows, that there can be no cause sufficient for such a division, and consequently, that she cannot fall into such errors or corruptions, as may force any to leave her Communion. And therefore as we prove a priori, that the Church cannot fall into error, because she is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost: So as it were a posteriori, or ab absurdo, we must infer, that she is infallible, and not subject to error, because otherwise we might forsake her Communion, and men could have no certainty who be Heretics or Schismatics: but all would be obliged to leave all Churches, seeing none are free from error, and so, remaining members of no Church on earth, could hope for no salvation in Heaven. 23. For this cause, in the definition of Schism, our Forefathers never put your limiting particle (causeless) well knowing, and taking it as a principle in Christianity, that there could be no cause to forsake the Communion of God's Church; as, in proportion, if one should say, it is not lawful to divide one's self from Christ without cause, he should insinuate, that there might be some cause in some case to do so: and yet Potter (Pag: 75.) affirms, That there neither was, nor can be any just cause to departed from the Church of Christ; no more than from Christ himself. Durum telum necessitas. It could not be denied that Luther departed from all Churches, and so there was no possible way to avoid the note of open Schism, 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 avoid Schism, they broach a most pernicious Heresy, that indeed there may be any such just cause; verifying what S. Hierome saith upon those words of the Apostle, which (a good conscience) some casting off, have suffered shipwreck: Though schism in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresy; yet there is no Schism, which doth not feign some Heresy to itself, that so it may seem to have departed from the Church upon good reason: That is, that their diusion may not seem to be a causeless separation, as you speak in your new definition. But I pray you hear S. Austin (Lib: 2. Cont: Petil: Chap 16.) saying; I object to thee the sin of Schism, which thou wilt deny, but I will strait prove. 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 have 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 upon just cause: and (Lib: 2. Cont: Parm: Cap: 11.) There is no just necessity to divide unity. 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 say of S, Austin, the conclusion must be, that Luther who divided himself from the communion of the whole world, and all Nations, was a Schismatic, seeing it is not possible that any may have just cause to do so, as S. Austin affirms. Observe also what this same glorious Doctor saith (Lib de Vnit: Eccl: Cap: 4.) Whosoever believe that jesus 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 Catholic Church. Was Luther's communion with the whole, which was not with any one place, or person? Dr. Lawd (Pag: 139.) saith plainly: The whole Church cannot universally err in absolute Fundamental Doctrines. And therefore 'tis true that there can be no just cause to make a Schism from the whole Church. Which must be understood, 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 Schism or division, seeing 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 Schism from the whole Church, is, because she cannot err in absolute Fundamental doctrines, which supposes both that she may err in Points not Fundamental, and; that errors in such points cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake her communion; which is directly against all those who teach that the Roman Church doth not err Fundamentally, and yet that they had cause to forsake her communion, by reason of her errors. We must therefore conclude, that seeing there can be no just cause to departed from the communion of the Church, and yet that there might be just cause to do so, if she were subject to corruption or error, we must absolutely believe her to be infallible, and that they who teach the contrary, and upon that pretence forsake her communion, are guilty of Schism, and heresy. 24. And this is a fit place to put you in mind of your doctrine, that the Apostles, after the receiving 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 Gospels to gentiles. For, this false doctrine supposed; I ask whether or no, it had been necessary, or lawful to leave the communion of that most primitive Church. If it were not lawful; then errors even in Faith, afford not a just cause to forsake a Church. If you say it was lawful to forsake the Apostles, and the whole Church of their time, you blaspheme: And yet if the Apostles, and the whole primitive Church did err, they, that is all Christians, might and ought to have been forsaken; and therefore if it were but to avoid this gross absurdity, we must say, that neither the Church of that, nor of consequent ages, could err. 25. Thus much be said in the first way: That, considering things as they are in themselves, the Church might be forsaken, if she could err, and therefore because it is most certain that she can never be forsaken, we must firmly believe that she cannot err; though indeed I must add, that if she could err, she might, and might not be forsaken; it being no strange thing, that upon a false supposition, contradictoryes may follow: whereof more hereafter. 25. Now let us see, what may be said 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 undertaking, by reason of their inconstancy, saying, and unsaying as they are forced by different, or contrary occasions, which make them do 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 always there hath been, is, and ever shallbe such a Church, as we have seen above. In so much as D. Lawd (Pag: 141.) sayeth: All Divines Ancient, and Modern, Romanists, and Reformers agree in this, That the whole Militant Church of Christ cannot fall away into general Apostasy. And (Pag: 142.) he sayeth: that otherwise falsehood in the very Article (of the Creed, that the Church is Holy) may be the subject of the Catholic Faith, which were no less than Blasphemy to affirm. 28. Secondly; Hence it follows, that she did not err in any Fundamental Point, every one whereof, utterly destroys the Church, but that her (falsely) supposed errors were only in Points not Fundamental, or not absolutely necessary to salvation. 29. Thirdly; That if such errors in Points not Fundamental do not exclude salvation, men may be saved without profession of the contrary truths, it being impossible that one believe an error, and also the truth contrary to that error: and therefore, if the error be not destructive of salvation, it is impossible that the contrary truth be necessary thereto. 30. Fourthly; If therefore we can show that according to Protestants, errors in Points not Fundamental, destroy not salvation, it will follow of itself, that, in their grounds, they might, and aught to have remained in the external communion of the visible Church, notwithstanding such errors; since by so doing, they had wanted nothing necessary to salvation; nor done any thing incompatible therewith. For which, we take your own words (Pag: 272. N. 53.) It concerns every man who separates from any Church's communion, even as much as his salvation is worth, to look most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary: For, unless 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 us now see what Protestants hold in this matter. 31. I grant, that sometime in words they will seem to teach, that it is necessary to believe, 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 appear, that they must hold the contrary; and that in express words they sometime actually declare so much. Neither ought this to seem any strange thing: since Heretics must say and unsay, to help a bad cause, as well as their wits will serve them. In which respect, I could never much approve the great pains which some Catholic Divines employ, to prove that Heretics hold this, or that, because sometime 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 say, is (not that they held determinately this, and not that, but only) that indeed they contradicted, and by God's just judgement destroyed themselves 32. Well then, that it is necessary to believe whatsoever is revealed by God, and sufficiently propounded, Potter (Pag: 245. affirms in these words: It seems Fundamental to the Faith, and for the salvation of every member of the Church, that he acknowledge and believe all such Points of Faith, as whereof he may be sufficiently convinced that they belong to the Doctrine of jesus Christ. For he that being sufficiently convinced, doth oppose, is obstinate, an Heretic, and finally such a one as excludes himself out of Heaven, wherinto no wilful sinner can enter. And (Pag: 250.) It is Fundamental to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of God, whereof he may be convinced, that they are from God. And herupon Chillingworth (Pag: 11.) speaks to Charity Maintained in this manner: It amazed me to hear 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 denied and disbelieved. He tells you plainly there are none such. Again it is almost as strange to me, why you should say, this was the only thing in question, whether a man may deny or disbelieve any Point of Faith, sufficiently presented to his understanding as a truth revealed by God. Produce any one Protestant that ever did so, and I will give you leave to say, it is the only thing in question. Thus he. 33. To which I answer: That the state of the Question being, whether both Catholics and Protestants be capable of salvation, in their several Faiths and Religions (and the same reason is of all who differ in any matters of Faith, though of themselves they be not Fundamental) and Protestants judging us to be very uncharitable in saying they cannot be saved, seeing they hold the Creed, and all Fundamental Points (as they conceive) and therefore if they be in error, it is only in Points not Fundamental; Charity Maintained said, that Potter never answered to this Point clearly, directly, and constantly, as he ought to have done; that is, he never declared, whether different belief in Points not Fundamental, doth so destroy the unity of Faith in persons so disagreeing, as that they cannot be said to be of one Faith for the substance, or of one Church and Religion, in such manner as one might absolutely say, Catholics and Protestants are of one Faith and Church, and capable of salvation in their several beliefs and professions of Faith. This, Potter never did, nor in policy durst do, because saith Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 3.) He was loath to affirm plainly, that generally both Catholics and Protestants may be saved: And yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have 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 us, he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of Language, and to fill up his Book with Points which make nothing to the purpose. Besides, if once he grant, that difference of belief, though it be only in Points not Fundamental, 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 himself, accordingly as he might be pressed by diversity, or contrariety, of difficultyes; and so by uttering contradictions, say Nothing at all to the main question; (or else speak equally in favour of both Contradictories.) For, what implies contradiction, implies only nothing. But let us go forward, and add to what we have already cited out of Chillingworth, his other words (Pag: 21.) If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in any error, by any sin of his will, (as it is to be feared many millions are) such error is, as the cause of it, sinful and damnable. The same doctrine he pretends to deliver through his whole Book; whereby it seems that both he and Potter hold (in words) that to believe any error against Divine Revelation sufficiently propounded, is sinful and damnable, and destroys the foundation of Faith, being as Chilling: saith (P. 11.) no less, than to give God the . 34. Nevertheless it is evident that in reality and deeds, yea and in express profession, they and other Protestants, do, and must, maintain the contrary, unless they have a mind to contradict themselves, in Points of heigh concernment for their cause. This I prove by these considerations. 35. First: The World knows, that nothing is more frequent in the mouth of Protestants, than that they all hold the same substance of Faith, and retain the essence of a true Church, because they agree in Fundamental Points, which they are wont to prove, because they believe the Apostles Creed, and the four first General Counsels; 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 heresies) in the other Catholic Creeds of Nice Constantinople, Ephepsus, Chacedon, and Aranesius contains all fundamental truths; and from thence infers (Pag: 232. that Protestants agree in fundamentals: and (Pag: 241.) he saith, the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamental truths, wherein consists the unity of Faith, and of the Catholic Church. But these assertions were very false, and impertinent, if it be damnable, and even Fundamental against Faith, to believe any error repugnant to. Divine Revelation, though in a Point not Fundamental of itself. For, what imports it, to believe all the Articles of the Creed, if in the mean time, they deny some other truths revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed for such; for example, innumerable Texts of Scripture containing no matters, Fundamental of themselves? As certainly some Protestants must do, seeing two contradictoryes cannot be true. Or why do they deceive men, in telling them, that by believing the Creed, they cannot err Fundamentally; seeing they hold that there are millions of truths which to deny were a damnable and Fundamental error? If therefore they will keep this ground, that they have the same substance of Faith and hope of salvation, because they agree in Fundamental Points, they must affirm, that disagreement, or error in a Point not Fundamental, doth not destroy the substance of Faith, or deprive men of hope to be saved, nor is a Fundamental error, as Potter and Chilling: sometime say it is, as we have seen; and Chilling: saith in particular, (Pag: 131. N. 9) If Protestants differ in Points Fundamental, than they are not members of the same Church one with another, no more than with you (he means, us Catholics.) Wherefore upon the matter, if to deny Points of themselves not Fundamental sufficiently propounded, be a Fundamental error, de facto Protestant's are not members of the same Church one with another, according to Chillingworths own words. If it be not a Fundamental error, 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 prove. 36. Secondly. Learned Protestants are very desirous, and even ambitious, that the world should believe them to be of the same Church with the Roman; and this merely upon necessity, and for their own sake; lest otherwise they should be necessitated to affirm, that before Luther there was no true Church upon earth, but that he and his followers created a new Church out of nothing; from which, Potter utterly disclaims (Pag: 59) saying; Protestant's 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 Fundamental truths, which constitute a Church, are on both sides unquestioned: 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 us, who, they say, are defided with horrible errors and corruptions, if every error in any Point of Faith, though not Fundamental, destroys the substance o Faith and Church, and possibility of salvation? If then they will speak with consequence to themselves, they must affirm, that, errors in Points not Fundamental, do not exclude salvation. 37. Thirdly: Protestants teach, that the Church may err in Points not Fundamental, and yet remain a Church, but cannot err in Fundamentals without destruction of herself. Now, if sinful errors in Points not Fundamental, be damnable, Fundamental, and destructive of salvation, they also destroy the essence of the Church; and therefore Protestants must either say, that the Church cannot err in any Point though not Fundamental, as she cannot err in Fundamentals; or else must affirm, that sinful errors not Fundamental, are not damnable, or Fundamental, or destructive of salvation, according to their grounds. 38. Fourthly; Protestants are wont to say (and by this, seek to excuse their Schism) that they left not the Church of Rome, but her corruptions; and that they departed no farther from her, than she departed from herself: But if every error against a Divine Truth sufficiently proposed, be destructive of the substance of Faith, and hope of salvation, the Roman Church (which you suppose to be guilty of such errors) 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 herself, or rather she ceasing to have any being, your not communicating with her, was total, and not only in part, or in her corruptions: and if you departed from her, as far as she departed from herself, seeing she departed totally from herself, you also must be said to have departed totally from her, which yet you deny; and therefore must affirm, that sinful errors not Fundamental, destroy not the Church, nor exclude hope of salvation. If therefore Protestant's will not destroy their own assertions, u.g. That they left not the Church, but her corruptions; that they departed no farther from her, than she departed from herself; that they left not the Church, but her external Communion; that Protestants agree in substance of Faith, because they agree in Fundamental Points; that their Church is the same with the Roman; that the Church may err in Points not Fundamental, but not in Fundamentals; if, I say, Protestants will overthrow these, and other like assertions, they must grant, that sinful errors in Points not Fundamental, destroy not the substance of Faith, nor exclude salvation, and consequently that they left the Church for Points not necessary; and so are guilty of Schism, which you grant to happen of when the cause of separation is not necessary, as we have seen out your own words, (Pag: 272. N. 53.) 39 But yet let us see, whether Protestants do not confess, that sinful errors not fundamental are compatible with salvation, as we have proved it to follow out of their deeds and principles. You say (Pag 307. N. 106.) That it is lawful to separate from any Church's communion, for errors not appertaining to the substance of Faith, is not universally true, but with this exception, unless that Church require the belief and profession of them. And (Pag: 281. N. 67.) We say not, that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamentall, unless it exact withal either a dissimulatiom of them being noxious; or a profession of them against the dictate of conscience, if they be mere errors. And (N. 68) Neither for sin, nor errors, ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and enjoin them. Therefore, say I, we must immedintly infer, that errors not Fundamental, do not destroy Faith, Church, salvation. For if they did, ipso facto the Church which holds them, should cease to be a Church, and so she must necessarily leave all Churches, and all Churches must leave her, she losing her own being, as a dead man leaves all, and is left by all. And here let me put you in mind, that while (Pag: 307. N. 106.) above cited, you seem to disclose some great secret or subtlety, in saying, that it is not lawful to separate from any Church's communion for errors not appertaining to the substance of Faith, is not universally true, but with this exception, unless that Church requires the belief and profession of them; you do but, contradict yourself. For if the Church err 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, errs in not Fundamentals, and does not impose the belief of them? Especially if we call to mind your doctrine, that one may err sinfully against some Article of Faith, and yet retain 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 give me leave to esteem it a high degree of presumption, to enjoin men to believe, that there are, or can be any other Fundamental Articles of the Gospel of Christ, than what himself commanded his Apostles to teach all men; or any damnable heresies, but such as are plainly repugnant to these prime Verityes. Therefore we must infer, that seeing errors in Points not Fundamental, are not repugnant to those prime verityes, they cannot, in your way, be esteemed damnable heresies; and if not damnable heresies, 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 unity of Faith. And (P. 40.) Unity 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 infer, that errors not Fundamental exclude not salvation, nor can yield sufficient cause to forsake a Church, or else that men must still be forsaking all Churches, because there is never absolute unity in all particles of truth. Whitaker also (Controver: 2. Quest: 5. Cap. 18.) saith; If an Heretic must be excluded from salvation, that is, because he overthroweth some foundation. For unless he shake or overthrow some foundation, he may be saved. According to which Doctrine, the greatest part of Scripture may be denied. But for my purpose, it is sufficient to observe, that so learned a Protestant teaches, that errors in Points not Fundamental, exclude not from salvation. Morton in his imposture (Cap: 15.) saith: Neither do Protestants yield more safety to any of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case, than they do to whatsoever Heretics, whose belief doth not undermine the fundamental Doctrine of Faith. Therefore he grants some safety even to Heretics, if they oppose not Fundamental Articles; and yet they must be supposed to be in sinful error against some revealed truth; otherwise they could not be Heretics. Dr. Lawd (Pag: 355.) teaches, That to err in things not absolutely necessary to salvation, is no breach upon 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 preserve 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 grant to Romanists, is, not as they are Romanists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they believe the Creed, and hold the foundation, Christ himself, not as they associate themselves wittingly and knowingly to the gross superstitions of the Roman Church? Behold a clear confession, that the pretended errors of the Roman Church do not exclude salvation, and yet they are supposed to be against some revealed Truths! Therefore errors in Points not Fundamental, are not repugnant to salvation. 40. But what conclusion can we deduce from these Premises, that errors in Points not necessary or Fundamental, are not damnable, but that one may be saved in them. Dr. Lawd hath done it for us (Pag: 133.) in these words: The whole Church cannot universally err in absoute Fundamental Doctrines, and therefore there can be no just cause to make a Schism from the whole Church. And (Pag: 196.) he teaches, that by the manifest places in Scripture there may be settled Unity and Certainty of Belief in necessaries 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 universally err in the Doctrine of Faith, is most true, (so you will but understand it's not erring, in Absolute. Fundamental Doctrines.) And therefore 'tis true also, that there can be no just Cause to make a Schism from the whole Church. Certainly Luther did not follow this advice, who began, and maintained, a Contention to Separation from the whole World, from which, Dr. Lawd expressly saith there can be no just Cause to make a Schism. But this is not all. For, (Pag: 226.) he saith: Suppose a General Council actually Erring in some Point of Divine truth, I hope it will not follow that this Error must be so gross, as that forthwith it must needs be known to private men. And doubtless till they know it, Obedience must be yielded: Nay when they know it, (if the Error be not manifestly against Fundamental Verity in which case a General Council cannot easily err) I would have all wise men consider, whether external Obedience be not even then to be yielded. For if Controversyes arise in the Church, some end they must have, or theyil tear all in sunder. And I am sure no wisdom can think that fit. Why then, say a General Council Err, and a Erring Decree be ipso jure, by the very Law itself invalid, I would have it wisely considered again, whether it be not fit to allow a General Council that Honour and Privilege, which all other Great Courts have. Namely, that there be a Declaration of the invalidity of its Decrees, as well as of the Laws of other Courts, before private men take Liberty to refuse Obedience. For till such a Declaration, if the Council stand not in force. A. C. Sets up private Spirits to control General Counsels; which is the thing he so much cries out against in the Protestants. Therefore it may seem very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendom, that a General Council thus erring, should stand in force, till Evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration make the Error to appear, as that another Council of equal Authority, reverse it. For, as for Moral Certainty, that's not strong enough in Points of Faith. How many Points do these words contain in favour of Catholics, against Protestants? 41. 1. That known Errors in Points not Fundamental, are not only to be tolerated, but that Obedience is to be yielded to the Church, or Council, even concerning such Points and Errors. How then can Luther be excused from Schism, who was so far from yielding Obedience to the Church, that he opposed himself to, and made a public Separation from all Churches? And how can Protestants be now excused from Schism, who follow his example, defend his doctrine, and persist in the Separation, and breach which he made? 42. Secondly: That to profess externally errors in Points not Fundamental, excludes not salvation. For, to do any thing repugnant to salvation, I am sure no wisdom can think fit, to use his own Words: And then it cannot be necessary to forsake the Church, for avoiding the profession of Errors not Fundamental; and yet this is the reason for which Protestants pretend to be excused from Schism. 43. Thirdly; He doth not only affirm, but endeavours to prove, that external Obedience must be yielded to the Decrees of Counsels, because if Controversyes arise in the Church, some end they must have, or theyil tear all in sunder: Which he saith no wisdom can think fit. Which proves very well, that some Living Judge of Controversyes is necessary; and is directly opposite to Chillingworth, who affirms, that there is no necessity of such a Judge, 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, seeing to dissemble in matters of Faith, or profess one thing, and believe the contrary, is a grievous sin, and a most pernicious lie; no man can yield external Obedience against the judgement and dictamen of his Conscience; and yet it being also true, that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of General Counsels, we must of necessity affirm, that they are infallible, and cannot Decree any Error in Faith: Otherwise, I must either disobey, or speak against my Conscience in matters of Faith, which is intrinsecè malum, and can never be excused from a damnable sin. To these straits Protestants are brought, by denying the infallibility of God's Church. May Counsels be disobeyed? Then there will be no means to end Controversyes, and theyil tear all in sunder? Must they be obeyed? Then in case they decree an Error against Faith, as they may do if they be fallible, men must proceed against their Conscience. What then remains, but to believe that they are infallible? and so we securely may, and necessarily must, obey their Decrees, because I am sure that they have both infallibility not to err, and Authority to command. Thus our belief and proceeding is clear, smooth, and most consequent; whereas our Adversaries denying the said infallibility, are forced to great impietyes against God, and manifest contradictions with themselves. Besides seeing he confesses, that Moral Certainty is not strong enough in Points of Faith, the Judge of Controversyes in such Points, must be absolutely infallible; otherwise we cannot receive from him Certainties strong enough for Points of Faith. And if Controversyes must be ended by General Counsels, as he affirms, their Decrees must be of more than Moral Certainty. 45. Fiftly; Whereas he says, that Obedience is not to be yielded if the Error be manifestly against Fundamental Verity, he ought to consider, that the chiefest malice in Heresy, consists not in being against such or such a material Object, or Truth; great; or little; Fundamental, or not Fundamental; but in the opposition it carrieth with the Divine testimony, which we suppose to be equally represented in both kinds of Points, Fundamental, and not Fundamental: And therefore 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 acknowledge a Judge endued with infallibility. Neither doth A. C. Set up private Spirits to control General Counsels, which Catholics believe to be infallible; but that absurdity flows out of the doctrine of Protestants, affirming them to be fallible, even in Fundamental Points, and consequently private men are neither obliged, nor can rely on their Authority in matters of Faith, for which, Moral 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 Counsels be fallible, what greater certainty can I receive from the second, than from the first, if we merely respect their Authority. For, if I be moved with some new reason or Demonstration, I am not moved for the Authority of the Council, but for that Reason which seems good to me. And is not this to set up private men and Spirits to control General Counsels? 46. Sixthly: He saith, A General Council cannot easily err manifestly against Fundamental Verity: From whence I infer, that seeing Luther opposed the whole Church, and so many General Counsels, held before his time; he is to be presumed, to have opposed them, not for any manifest Fundamental, but at most for Errors not Fundamental; (to speak as Protestants do: For indeed Counsels cannot err in either kind) in which Points not Fundamental, he saith men are to yield Obedience, and therefore He, and all those who formerly did, and now do, follow his example, are to be judged guilty of Schism. 47. Seaventhly; He saith, It may seem very fit and necessary for the Peace of Christendom, that a General Council thus erring, should stand in force till evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration make the Error to appear, as that another Council of equal Authority reverse it. In these words he gives us Catholics no small advantage against the Capital principle of Protestants; that, Scripture alone contains evidently all necessary Points. For if evidence of Scripture, or a Demonstration may be so inevident, or obscure to a whole lawful General Council, that it may fall into Fundamental Errors, 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 talk 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 General Council should be so blind, as not to see that which is evident? And this indeed is to set up private Spirits to control General Counsels. I will not urge, what he means by a Demonstration, when he distinguisheth it from Evidence of Scripture. A Demonstration implies an undeniable, and as I may say, an Evident Evidence; and if it be an Evidence distinct from the Evidence of Scripture, which according to Protestants contains evidently all necessary Points of Faith, it must be evidence of natural Reason, which is common to all men: And how can a General Council err against such a kind of Evidence? But as I said, Evidence with Protestants is a voluntary word, which they make use of to their purpose. Besides, Scripture is no less evident in innumerable points not fundamentall, than it is in some which are Fundamental: and therefore, all who believe Scripture, are obliged to believe those no less than these, unless men will say that it is not damnable, to believe, and profess something evidently known to be against Scripture; and therefore in this, there can be no distinction between Fundamental and not fundamentall Points; and so a General Council may as easily err against Fundamental Articles, as against Points not Fundamental clearly delivered in Scripture; in which case, it is destructive of salvation to err against either of those kinds. I have been somewhat long in pondering his words, because I understand the book is esteemed by some; and I hope it appears, by what I have now said out of it; that we may be saved; that a Living judge of controversyes is necessary; that, Luther, and all Protestants are guilty of the sin of Schism. Three as main and capital Points in favour of us, against Protestants, as we can desire, and they fear! 48. Hereafter we will ponder Mr. Chillingworths' words for our present purpose; who speaking of General Counsels, saith (Pag: 200. N. 18.) I willingly confess, the judgement of a Council, though not infallible, is yet so far directive, and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least, not to afford it an outward submission for public peace-sake. As also we will consider Potter's words: (Pag: 165.) speaking thus: We say, that such General Counsels as are lawfully called, and proceed orderly are great and awful representations of the Church Catholic; that they are the highest external Tribunal which the Church hath on Earth; that their Authority is immediately derived and delegated from Christ; that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction; that their decrees bind all persons to external obedience, and may not be questioned but upon evident reason, nor reversed but by an equal authority: that if they be careful and diligent in the use of all good Means for finding out the truth, it is very probable that the good spirit will so direct them, that they shall not err, at least, not Fundamentally 49. But let us proceed in proving, that Protestants hold Points not Fundamental, not to be of any great moment, and much less to be destructive of salvation. It is clear, that Protestants differ among themselves in many Points, which they pretend to be only not Fundamental, and say they do not destroy the ubstance of Faith, nor hinder them from being Brethren, and of the same Church. And why? because such Points are small matter, as Whitaker speaks (Cont: ●. Quest: 4. Cap: 3.) Things in different and tittles, as King James saith in his Monitory Epistle: Matters of no great moment, as Andrew's (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, Class 4. C. 10. §. 65.) Forms and phrases of speech, as Potter speaks, (Pag: 90.) a curious nicety (Pag: 91.) 50. Out of all which, we must conclude both out of the words, deeds, and principles of Protestants: First that errors against Points not Fundamental are not destructive of salvation, being but matters of small consideration in their account. Secondly; That they can not be excused from Schism, who forsook all Churches for Points not Fundamental, and of so small moment, in which they disagree amongst themselves, and in divers of which, many of them agree with us, against their pretended Brethren; which is to be well observed. Thirdly, that, Chillingw● had no reason (Pag: 11) to say to Charity Maintained; produce any one Protestant that ever did so (that is, affirm that every error not Fundamental is not destructive of salvation) and I will give you leave to say, It is the only thing in Question; seeing I have proved out of many chief Protestants, that, for which he saith no one can be produced; yea and I can yet produce a full confession of Mr. Chillingworth himself, that, Errors in not Fundamentals, are not destructive of salvation, nor such as may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace, or renounce the Communion of a Church. Thus he speaks 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 Error destructive of salvation, or in itself damnable. For the Church of England, I am persuaded, that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox, that whosoever believes it, and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved, and that there is no error in it, which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace, or renounce the communion of it. Here I observe; first; If the doctrine of Protestanss (whom he expressly confesses to hold contradictions, and consequently some of them to hold errors at least in Points not Fundamental) be free from all error destructue of salvation, or in itself damnable; it follows, that errors against Points not Fundamental, are not destructive of salvation, nor in themselves damnable, which is the thing I intended to prove. 2. What he saith of the Errors among Protestants, that they are not destructive of salvation, he must also say of our pretended errors: both because commonly, of disagreeing Protestants one part agrees with us, as also because, as I said, divers of them stand directly with us, against the common course of the rest; and finally, because the reason of being, or not being damnable, is common to all Points not Fundamental, which are supposed to contradict some divine revelation sufficiently propounded; which to do, if it be destructive 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, undoubtedly he shall be saved; and that there is no error in it, which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturb the peace, or renounce the communion of it, you must say; seeing Luther and his followers did, and do, disturb the peace, and renounce, the communion of the whole Church of God before his time, which must be supposed to have erred only in Points not Fundamental, (otherwise it had been no Church) they did, and do, that, for which there was no necessity, and for which they had no warrant, and therefore cannot avoid the just imputation of Schism. For the same reason also (that the Church erred only in points not Fundamental) you must grant, that whosoever believes as the Church did, and lives accordingly, undoubtedly shall be saved. For I am sure you believe the Church of England to have erred in divers 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 believe not the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and much less, that our Saviour Christ was true God, and consubstantial with his Father: to say nothing of other Points, of those 39 articles. And is it not ridiculous, to hear you talk of purity of doctrine of the Church of England, which you believe to be stained with such Errors? 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 forsook, and that therefore they certainly exclude themselves from salvation by forsaking the communion of them, amongst whom salvation was so certain: and remember your words (Pag: 272. N. 53.) it concerns every man who separates from any Church's communion even as much as his salvation is worth, to look most carefully to it, that the cause of his separation be just and necessary. For unless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient. To which proposition, if we subsume; but it cannot be necessary to separate, for avoiding that error, or attaining that Truth, which to avoid, or attain, is not necessary to salvation; therefore Luther who separated from the Church for Points not necessary, cannot pretend any necessary or sufficient cause for such his separation, and consequently was guilty of the sin of Schism. 4. But yet you will still be making good, that in these matters, Protestants, and yourself in particular, have no constancy, but say and unsay, as may best serve their turn. You tell us; the doctrine of all Protestants is free from all Error in itself damnable; which agrees not with what you say of Protestants (Pag: 19) If we fail in using such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence, and ordinary discretion shall advise, in a matter of such consequence, our Errors begin to be malignant, and justly imputable, as offences against God, and that love of his truth which he requires in ut. And (Pag: 306. N. 106.) For our continuing in the Communion (of Protestants) notwithstanding their Errors, the justification hereof, is not so much, that their Errors are not damnable, as that they require not the belief and profession of these Errors among the conditions of their Communion. And (Pag: 279. N. 64.) The visible Church is free indeed from all Errors absolutely destructive, and unpardonable, but not from all error which in itself is damnable; not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them that keep themselves in them, by their own voluntary and avoidable fault. If the visible Church be not free from error which in itself is damnable, how could you say that the Protestant Church of England is free from all error damnable in itself? But why do I cite particular passages? You give a general Rule concerning all Errors, (Pag: 158. N. 52.) in these words: If the cause of it (an error) be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Error is itself sinful, and consequently in its own nature damnable; as if by negligence in seeking the Truth, by unwillingness to find it, by pride, by obstinacy, by desiring that Religion shoudl be true which suits best with my ends, by fear of men's ●ll opinion, or any other worldly fear, or any other worldly hope, I betray myself to any error contrary to any Divine revealed truth, that error may be justly styled a sin, and consequently of itself to such a one damnable. And if he die without Contrition, this error in itself damnable, will be likewise so unto him. I have set down your words at large, that Protestants may learn by them, how to examine their conscience, about what care they use, to find the true Church and Religion, which imports them no less, than the eternal salvation, or Damnation of their souls: And that every one may clearly see, that you do not only grant more than once, the errors of Protestants to be in themselves damnable, but also a reason for it; namely, because all errors in Faith are contrary to some Divine Revelation; which reason is common to Protestants, to the Church of England, and to all who err in matters of Faith. And then with what sincerity could you affirm, that whosoever holds the doctrine of the Church of England, and lives according to it, undoubtedly he shall be saved? Can one who is in an error damnable of itself, be undoubtedly saved, without repentance? Have we not heard you say; To him who died without contrition, the error in itself damnable, will be likewise so unto him? Do you not say (Pag: 138. N. 23.) For aught I know, all Protestants, and all that have sense, must grant that all errors are alike damnable, if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different? Therefore you must grant, that as errors against Fundamental Truths sufficiently propounded, are damnable; so also errors against not Fundamental Truths, are damnable, if both be equally proposed. How then are the Errors of all Protestants, and of the Church of England in particular, not damnable? 51. Thus we have sufficiently confuted your first Memorandum; and shown, 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 therefore must be infallible, and free from all corruptions and errors.) Ad hominem; because according to the principles of Protestants, errors not Fundamental, being not destructive of salvation, cannot yield sufficient cause of separation, nor free any from yielding obedience, even in the supposed unfundamentall errors, as they confess ours to be; and if sometime Protestants say the contrary, at other times they contradict themselves; which serves only for their greater condemnation, in leaving the communion of all Christian Churches, upon uncertaintyes in which themselves do waver, sometime affirming, sometime denying. And upon this very ground of uncertainty, I go forward to prove more, and more, that their separation was causeless. 52. For, (Pag: 308. N. 108.) you do not disallow the saying of Cha: Ma: (Part: 1. Pag: 207.) In cases of uncertainty, we are not to leave our Superior, nor cast of his obedience, nor publicly 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 and demonstrative is such, as being proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent. The other; that in case of probability only, or uncertainty, Laws established, are to be obeyed, and men are bound (not to observe those Laws which they are persuaded to be against the law of God, but) for the time to suspend their persuasions to the contrary, and that in otherwise doing, they offend against God by troubling the Church. This ground being laid, I subsume; (besides what hath now been said of the variousness and uncertainty of Protestants about Points not Fundamental) Protestant's cannot possibly have evidence or certainty against Catholics, therefore they offended against God by dividing theselves from us, and troubling the peace of all Churches. The subsumption, or Minor I prove divers ways (abstaining from examination of particular Controversyes) and: 53. First in this manner; An Argument necessary and Demonstrative is such, as being proposed to any man, and understood, the mind cannot choose but inwardly assent, saith Hooker. If therefore the arguments of Protestants against us were necessary and demonstrative, learned Catholics could not choose but inwardly assent; and unless they were extreme wicked dissemblers against their conscience, would also publicly profess. And yet we see, that all Catholics, in all Ages, and places, learned, holy, wise, and such as God used 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, descent from the Arguments and conclusions of Protestants: therefore it is clear, that their reasons against us, are not necessary nor demonstrative, and so according to Hooker, the Laws established were to be obeyed and Protestants were bound to suspend their persuasions to the contrary. Truly, this is an Argument which must convince any man, of a mind not perverse, and resolved to persever in his error. 54. Secondly I prove that they cannot produce against us any necessary or demonstrative Argument; in regard of the Antiquity of our doctrine confessed even by our Adversaries, as may be seen in Brierley (P. 129. & seqq. Edition: Ann. 1608.) now how could these doctrines have passed the search and examine of so many learned men, and watchful Prelates, for the space of so many ages, if any necessary or demonstrative argument, to which men cannot but assent, could have been produced against them? 55. Thirdly; Learned Protestants confess, that the Fathers hold with us, against them, in many and chiefest Points of Doctrine controverted in these days, as we have seen heretofore: which could not happen, if the Arguments of Protestants against the Fathers and us, were necessary and demonstrative. 56. Fourthly; In all our chiefest differences, divers most learned Protestants, agree with us, against their pretended Brethren, as we have also demonstrated heretofore. Now these men, being learned could not but see and assent to necessary and demonstrative Arguments; if any could have been alleged against us; and being Adversaries, would not have failed to make use of them; nor would they have ever left their Brethren, and joined with us, if evidence of truth, and reason had not forced them thereto; or if they could have espied any even probability, in the grounds and Doctrines of their Brethren: whereby it appears, that the tenets of Protestants are so far from being evident or their Arguments necessary and demonstrative, that they are not so much as probable. Who, I pray, will believe, that you could have any necessary demonstrative Arguments for your so many changes of Religion, and for your ending in Socinianism, which you never durst openly profess, and yet men are not wont to be ashamed of truths, proved by necessary, and demonstrative 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 understanding. And here you ought in all reason to apply to the Ancient Fathers, and learned Protestants agreeing with us, against their Brethren, what you say, (Pag: 40. and 41. N. 13.) in favour of Protestants in general to prove, that there is no necessity of damning all those that are of contrary belief; in these words; The contrary belief may be about the sense of some place of Scripture which is ambiguous, and with probability capable of divers senses: and in such cases it is no marvel, and sure no sin, if several men go several ways. Also, the contrary belief may be concerning Points wherein Scripture may with so great probability be alleged on both sides, (which is a sure note of a Point not necessary) that men of honest and upright hearts, true lovers of God and of truth, such as desire above all things, to know Gods will and to do it, may without any fault at all, some go one way, and some another, and some (and those as good men as either of the former) suspend their judgements. Now whatsoever you judge of us, yet I hope you will not deny, the Ancient Fathers, and your own Protestant Brethren, to be so qualifyed as you describe, men of honest and upright hearts, true lovers of God and the truth &c: And therefore seeing they understood the word of God as we do, you ought to absolve them, yea and us, and conceive that Luther had no necessary cause to forsake the whole Church, for Points maintained by men of so great quality in all kinds, whose authority you cannot deny to be sufficient for making a doctrine probable, and for divesting the contrary of certainty: and therefore according to hooker's rule, they ought to have suspended their persuasion, and they offended against God by troubling the whole Church. 57 Neither can you object against the Fathers what you say against us (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 error; at least you will not deny, but those Protestants who agree with us are knowing men, and have all the means of knowing the truth, which other Protestants have, and they being supposed (by you I hope) to be men of honest and upright hearts, may without any fault at all dissent from their Brethren, according to your own rule. And since you must excuse them, it were manifest injustice to condemn us, who defend the same doctrine with them. 58. Fifthly; It is a principle of nature that no private person, much less 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 certain possession, without very clear, and convincing evidence. Seeing 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 uncertainty, be sufficient to forsake her Communion, as noxious. O of how different a mind are our Novelists, from the Ancient Doctors of God's Church, who against all Heretics opposed the Tradition and Succession of the Bishops of Rome! as Tertuilian, the SS. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Optatus and Austin, as Calvin confesses (L. 4. Instit. C. 3.) and thinks to save himself, with this Answer, (Sect. 3.) Cum exrra contoversiam esset etc. it was undoubtedly true, that nothing was altered in doctrine from the beginning till that Age, they did allege that which was sufficient to overthrow all new errors, namely, that they were repugnant to the Doctrine which by unanimous consent was constantly kept from the very time of the Apostles themselves. But this Answer, can serve, only to show that the Argument of the Fathers against Heretics, 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 assistance of the holy Ghost, no argument could be taken to prove any doctrine true because it had been taught in that Sea, in regard that without such assistance, Error might have crept in, and tradition might have delivered a falsehood. Therefore the Father's alleging the Doctrine of the Roman Church, for a Rule to all other, must suppose such an assistance, without which their adversaries might have 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 merely upon matter of fact (that de facto the Church of Rome had delivered otherwise, than those Heretics held) and thence had inferred the falsehood of their heresies, would have been directly petitio principij, as if they had said; The Church of Rome de facto (without any certain assistance of the Holy Ghost) holds the contrary of that which you Heretics teach, but that which she holds, is true; therefore your Doctrine is false. For, this Minor (that which she holds, is true) had been a mere begging of the Question, without any proof at all, and had been no more in effect, then if the Fathers had said; 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 therefore yours is false. Wherefore we must give glory to God, and acknowledge that the Fathers believed that the Roman Church was assisted by the Holy Ghost above other Churches, not to fall into error in matters of Faith and Religion. Howsoever, let us take what Calvin grants, that at least the Church of Rome conserved the Truth and purity of Faith till the time of S. Austin, that is, between the fourth and fift Age after our Saviour Christ; and Heretics commonly grant, that the Church of Rome was pure for the first five hundred years. Now let any man of judgement consider, whether it was probable, or possible, that immediately after so great purity, and Sanctity, so huge a deluge of superstitions, Idolatryes, heresies, and corruptions, could have flowed into the Church of Rome, within the space of one hundred years, that is, till the time of S. Gregory the Great, without being noted or spoken of, or contradicted by any one: Especially if we consider, that other doctrines, which both Protestants and Catholics profess to be heresies, were instantly observed, impugned, and condemned: and to say, that those only of which they hold us guilty, did pass without observation of any, can be judged no better than a voluntary, affected, foolish fancy. I beseech the Protestant Reader, for the Eternal good of his own soul, to pause here a little, and well ponder this Point. Besides, S. Gregory himself, was a most holy, learned, and Zealous Pastor; 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 Predecessors; and Successors; which they neither would, nor could have done, if they had discovered any one, and much more, if so many, and so enormous Errors, 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 therefore what she taught and professed, could not be hidden under a bushel, but being placed upon a candlestick, did so shine to all, that all must needs see it, and either contradict, which none did, or approve it, as they did. And here we may allege 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 Master by his Novelty. And the belief of truth being found, all the Pastors of the whole World, if need were, were moved, and being moved did not rest, till they had removed the ill, and provided for the security of the sheep of Christ. How then is it possible, that, this heap of pretended Errors, in the Roman Church, could appear without being discovered, till Luther, an Apostata from his Faith, and Religious Order, did sacrilegiously marry a vowed Nun, and in the midst of his shameful carnal pleasures, receive revelations from the Devil, as himself doth openly confess? Wherefore we must conclude, that these Points which Protestant's would needs miscall Errors, 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 certain evidence, which is impossible for any Heretic so much as pretend to do with any modesty or show of truth, as I have proved, and will say more hereafter. 59 Sixthly; Protestants can prove nothing against us, with evidence, but by Scripture alone; which is impossible for them to do, as I have showed at large (Chap 2.) For, seeing words are capable of divers senses, it is impossible, by the words al●●e, to convince that they are understood in such or such a particular, determinate sense, and not in some other, of which they are capable; and what is possible, for aught we know, doth actually happen; and Gods free Decrees in this matter of using words in some set meaning, are not evident, either in themselves, or are notified to us by any certain Rule: and therefore Protestants cannot with any evidence, prove out of Scripture, that our doctrine contains any Error Fundamental, or not Fundamental. And it is well to be considered, that the same Arguments, which Protestants object against us now, were observed and answered by Catholic Divines, before Protestants appeared to the world, as they answered objections made against Christian Religion, or Catholic Verityes, by Pagans, Turks, Jews and such Heretics, as Protestants detest; and it is thereby apparent, that they did not dissemble difficultyes but did propose them with no less candour 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 enemies of Christianity, and the world believed, that they gave at that time as true solutions of those very objections of old Heretics, which now happen to be made by Protestants, as they did to those difficultyes, which were urged against Christian Religion, or against Catholic Verityes, by old Heretics, whom even Protestants condemn, Wherefore, to come now, and tell the world, that the Answers of those Catholic Doctors, against some few Points, were not solid, must needs breed a huge scandal, against Christian Religion, and Orthodox doctrine impugned by Pagans, Jews, Turks, and old condemned Heretics. Certain it is, that the enemies of Christian Religion, may object greater difficultyes against Christianity, than any Heretic can invent against us. It is therefore clear, that Protestants can have no necessary or demonstrative Argument, to prove that the Church hath degenerated into any least falsehood, in matters concerning Faith; and so we must conclude with these words of Hooker (cited by Chilling: Pag: 311.) As for the orders established, sigh equity and reason favour that which is in being, till orderly judgement of decision be given against it, it is but justice to exact of you, and perverseness in you it should be to deny thereunto your willing Obedience. Doth not every word of Hooker condemn Luther and his followers: Sith equity and reason favour that which is in being, and no orderly judgement 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 than perverseness in them to deny thereunto willing obedience, and a formal sin of Schism, 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 despoiled of the Possession they held of being accounted true and pure Churches; so also the Pope, Bishops, and other Prelates, and Pastors under Him, could not without Sacrilege, and injustice be disobeyed and deprived of the Right, which they did peaceably possess, when Luther first appeared. And for the Pope's Primacy in particular, it is acknowledged by Protestants to have been ancient, and taught by Holy Fathers, even with in the compass of years 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 behalf, to see Brierlyes' Index Verbo Peter Primacy, and Pope's Primacy, and turn to the places which there he shall find cited See also Charity Maintained (Pag: 1. Cap: 3. N. 19) of this matter. If then this Point be maintained 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 demonstrative reason against it? And consequently who will not infer, that the separation of Protestants from the whole Church was causeless, and so according to your own Memorandum, sinful, and Schismatical? 61. Let us now come to examine your second evasion (Pag: 265. N. 31.) The imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known Errors, and practising known corruptions, is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation: And that this is the cause which Protestants allege 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 means. For, they voluntarily professed a Faith contrary to that of the whole Church, which most carefully and even solicitously endeavoured by all means possible to reclaim them, as appears in the life of Luther; Cardinal Caietan being sent to Germany for that very purpose, a safe conduct being assured to them. And for Communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and Obedience to Prelates; they did separate from them, as well as from profession of the same Faith; one of their Errors being, that our worship of God being corrupted, they could not communicate with us in Liturgy, public prayers etc. Therefore they first did separate themselves: Fugitivi, non fugati, the contrary whereof they are wont to affirm. And not only they ceased to communicate with us, nor were content to hold their peace, bearing with patience the corruptions of the times (as they falsely styled them) but also drew men to conventicles of their own, pretended to erect new Churches, and set up altar against altar, and the like; and this against the commands of Bishops and Princes, both Ecclesiastical, and Temporal. You profess hightly to esteem Hugo Grotius. If in this you believe not me, believe him (in voto pro pace Ecclesiastica, Pa: 5.) Intelligebam, saith he, ex seniorum relatu, & ex perscriptis Historiis, extitisse postea homines, qui illam, 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, ut haec defenderent, planè quasi de caelo mandatum haberent quale Apostoli habuerant, obediendum Deo magis esse quàm hominibus. Which refractory proceeding, how much he disliked, is declared by him (Pag: 31.) Novum caetum, & ut 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 choose but see, how perfectly they agree to Luther and his followers, and clearly confute this your Memorandum. And indeed, whosoever considers this Point, will find it to be no better than nonsense, and a contradiction, to allege this cause for justifying your separation; since before any Excommunication, men leave the Church by professing a contrary Faith, and in virtue of that new Faith forsake Her Communion, and yet say, that they leave it, because we require, as a condition of our Communion, that they leave not that which necessarily, and as I may say, essentially, and antecedently, they of themselves do leave, whether we require it or no; and therefore our requiring it, cannot be the cause of that Effect, which is preexistent before that, which you say is the cause thereof, and would be the same, whether we required it or no; and we may say, that Heretics are the first, as it were to excommunicate, and divide themselves, before the Church can excommunicate them: Therefore this allegation of imposing under pain of Excommunication a necessity &c: is plainly impertinent; and all must be reduced to the cause itself; whether our doctrines be sufficiently and clearly convinced to be Errors; and then, whether such Errors being not Fundamental, can be sufficient to cause a separation. And so I retort this ground and say, that since you confess our Errors alone not to be a sufficient cause, to excuse your separation from us, (and for this reason you say Protestants are not obliged to separate themselves from one another) you must also acknowledge, that indeed they had no sufficient cause to divide themselves from all Churches. 63. Secondly; Yourself 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 us, to profess your doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and Conscience, may induce an obligation to departed from your Communion. Now if our corruptions in themselves, induce an obligation to departed from our Communion, this obligation is induced before the imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known Errors; and why then do you say, that imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known Errors, is the cause which Protestants allege to justify their separation? Since there is another cause precedent to that, and such a cause, as without it, this other of imposing upon men &c: cannot subsist. For, if our Errors, in themselves, do not impose upon you an obligation to forsake us, it is a sign, that they are not damnable in themselves, nor necessarily to be avoided; and consequently, you may, and aught, to remain with us, notwithstanding such Errors; and if you ought to do so, the Church may justly command it under pain of Excommunication, as a punishment of precedent obstinacy, and a medicine to prevent it for time to come; and so yourself overthrow this memorandum, whereby you would excuse your division from the Church. Yet on the other side, if our pretended errors 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 Errors to be in themselves damnable, and therefore you put a difference between them and us, only because they exact not of others a profession of their errors, and we do; and so you reduce all, to this exacting, or not exacting, a profession of known errors; and not to the errors in themselves, and yet we have heard you say, that our Errors, (in divers of which, chief learned Protestants agree with us against their Brethren) in themselves induce an obligation upon you to forsake us. What is here but contradicting, saying, and unsaying, the same thing? Which shows, that with you nothing is certain, except that you are certain of nothing; And consequently could have no necessary and certain reason, to forsake all Churches. 64. Thirdly; To bring you out of the clouds, and to understand things as they are: The separation we mean (when there is speech of division by Schism and Heresy) is not that separation which is caused by the Ecclesiastical censure of Excommunication, which deprives men of the public suffrages of God's Church, of use of Sacraments, and conversation with faithful people, and may consist with the Grace of God and Charity, not only when it is , but also when the party censured, reputes himself 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 remove, but heartily desires to be absolved, and so is united to the Church in voto. And this Censure of Excommunication, is wont to be inflicted, not only for Schism, or Heresy, but for other offences also, against God or our neighbour. But Luther and his fellows, voluntarily put themselves upon another kind of separation, to wit, from the profession of the same Faith, and external communion in Sacraments, Liturgy etc. upon pretence of Errors in the Faith, and corruptions in the discipline of the Church; and were so far from repenting themselves of such their proceed, or admitting any votum or desire, to be united with the Church, that they held all such repentance to be a sin; whereby they certainly exclude themselves from God's Grace, and Charity: and so it appears, that by mere Excommunication, one is not separated from the Church as a Schismatic is; nor is a Schismatic first separated because he is excommunicated, but is excommunicated, because he is a Schismatic, and had been divided from the Church, though he had never been excommunicated, or though the excommunication were taken away. Besides as I touched already, it is ridiculous to say, that the Church requires as a condition of her Communion, the profession of her errors in Faith, and external Communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and other public worship of God. For profession of the same Faith, and communion in Sacraments etc. is the very thing, wherein Communion consists, or rather is the Communion itself, and therefore is not an extrinsecall or accidental condition, voluntarily required by the Church, or to be conceived as a thing separable from her communion; and so you speak, as if one should say, Profession of the same Faith is a condition required for Communion in profession of the same Faith. It was therefore no condition required by us, that made Protestants leave our Communion; but they first left our Communion by their Voluntary proper Act of leaving us, which essentially is incompatible with our Communion. This whole matter will appear 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 own confession you are schismatics, seeing you define Schism to be a causeless separation: in which case, the Church may justly impose under pain of Excommunication a necessity of your return, and then your Memorandum cannot have place, nor can excuse you from Schism, since such an imposing a necessity, would, upon that supposition, be both lawful, and necessary. If there were just cause for your separation; than you had been excused from Schism, though the Church had never imposed, under pain of Excommunication, a necessity of professing known errors; because you, say, Schism is a Causeless separation; and surely that separation is not causeless, for which there is just cause. Wherefore your Memorandum about imposing upon 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 Schism. 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 employed against Protestants: who grant 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 utter contradictions. Wherefore the confessed chief part of your defence, being confuted, both by evident reason, and out of your own say, it remains that you will never be able to acquit yourself of Schism. 66. Fiftly; How can you maintain this your Memorandum, and not give full scope, to all other Protestants, who believe 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, seeing she excommunicates all whosoever shall affirm, that the 39 Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous. Is not this the very thing, which you say is the chief part of your defence for your separation from us? O Approbators! Is it conform 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 public service, corrupted with errors about the Trinity, the Creed of S. Athan &c: as you believe it is. Or why could you not communicate with us? Or how will you excuse Luther who left us? 67. Yet I must not here omit to observe some Points: First; what a thing your Religion is, which can so well agree, and hold communion with innumerable Sects, infinitely differing one from another? and yet you conceive yourself to be obliged, to part from us Catholics. But so it is. The false Gods of the Heathens, and their Idolaters, could handsomely agree amongst themselves, but in no wise with the true God, and his true worshippers! An evident sign, that the Catholic Roman Religion is only true, and teaches the right worship of God, and way to salvation. Falsehoods may stand together, but cannot consist with truth. 68 Secondly: If, as you tell us, things necessary be such as are in Scripture plainly delivered, points not Fundamental of themselves, become Fundamental, because they are revealed in Scripture, and it is Fundamental to the Faith of a Christian to believe all Truths sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God, as Potter expressly grants. Seeing 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 wherein they disagree. For, every one judges his opinions to be plainly delivered in Scripture. How then can they be excused from Schism, in their separation from us, while they hold Communion with other Protestants, and think they may, and aught to do so, and that in doing otherwise they should be schismatics? Which Argument still presses them more forcibly, if we reflect that many of the most learned Protestants, in divers chief Articles of Faith, stand with us catholics, against their pretended Brethren; and therefore they must either part from them, or not part from us, 69. Thirdly; it appears by your express words that they who differ in Points necessary, must divide from one another, though neither part impose upon the other a necessity of professing known Errors: 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 chief part of your defence, comes to nothing, even by your own grounds: and therefore you have indeed no defence at all, to free yourselves from Schism. 70. Fourthly; When we speak of Points of Faith not Fundamental, it is always understood, that they be sufficiently proposed, and therefore are always Fundamental per accidens, and the contrary Errors certainly damnable, and consequently a necessary cause of separation, no less than Errors against Points Fundamental of themselves: and seeing according to Protestants, there can be no damnable Error against Faith, unless 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 therefore according to your own assertion, are obliged to forsake one another, without expecting any Imposing a necessity of professing known Errors; and that this your Memorandum or condition is both impertinent and false: or if, as I said, they are not obliged to part one from another, they could not without Schism departed from us. 71. Fiftly; to come to the Point, and strike at the root. Tell me, whether you may be seriously present, as members of one community and, as I may say, parts in the Choir, with any sort of people, in their Liturgy, and public service, or worship of God, as long as they do not expressly demand of you, a profession of those particular Points, wherein you disagree? If you may; than you may join yourself with Turks, Jews, or even Pagans, if they exact not of you such a profession; which to any Christian must needs appear 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 own belief and conscience; it still follows clearly, that your Memorandum of imposing a necessity of professing known Errors, is impertinent; seeing you cannot communicate with those of a different Faith, though they impose it not upon you; and also that either Protestants cannot communicate one with another, since they differ in Faith, or else that they could not forsake us upon pretence, that we impose upon you a necessity of professing known Errors; 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 leave the Church and to leave the external Communion of a Church, is not the same thing: That being done by ceasing to be a member of it, by ceasing to have 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 public worship of God. 73. Answer, I wish you had declared yourself better. First: (Pag: 271. N. 51.) you say: We are not to learn the difference between Schism and Heresy. For, Heresy we conceive an obstinate defence of any Error, against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith: And Schism a causeless separation of one part of the Church from another. I have not time to examine what you mean by a necessary Article of the Christian Faith. Is not every Article of Christian Faith necessary to be believed, under pain 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, than your necessary Article of the Christian Faith implies no such Mystery, as one would have expected in those so limited words: and besides, if it be Heresy to deny any Point, though in itself never so small; of Protestants differing in any Point of Faith, some must be Heretics, and in state of damnation, and they must be obliged to separate from one another as from formal Heretics. If it be not an Heresy, nor damnable, to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, Errors in Points not Fundamental are not damnable: Neither could you, for such Errors, divide yourselves from the Communion of all Visible Churches. If you will needs say, that no Error is Heresy, unless it contradict some Article of itself Fundamental: What in particular is Heresy, or who is an heretic you cannot know, seeing you profess that it cannot be determined in particular, what Points be Fundamental; and therefore you must retract your former words; we are not to learn the difference between Schism and Heresy. For, if you cannot possibly tell what Heresy is, you will for ever be to learn the difference between Schism and Heresy; to say nothing for the present that Potter (Pag: 212.) acknowledges, that whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense Fundamental, that is, such as may not be denied, or contradicted without Infidelity: therefore it is Heresy at least, to deny Points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, though they be not Fundamental in themselves. And (Pag: 250.) he declares expressly every Error 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 Heretic, and heresy is a work of the flesh, which excludeth from Heaven: (Gal: 5: 20.21.) therefore if you will not contradict Potter, and yourself, in several places, you must confess, that Heresy may be committed, by Error not Fundamental in itself. But to our purpose, you say, Schism 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 external Communion of any Church, is the sin of Schism. Put these together: Schism is a separation of one part of the Church from an other: And Schism: is a separation from the external communion of any Church, the Consequence will be this: A separation from the external communion of any part of the Church, is a separation from the part itself, and then, proportionally, a separation from external communion of the whole Church, or of all Churches, must be a separation from the whole Church itself, or from all Churches; and so your distinction, that to leave the Church and to leave the external communion of a Church, is not the same thing, is confuted by your own doctrine▪ And though it make little to our present purpose, whether Schism be defined, A separation of one part of the Church from an other, as you speak (for, as I said, if a separation from the Externall Communion of one part be a separation from the part itself, a separation from the external communion of the whole church, must be a separation from the whole Church itself, which is the thing I intended to prove against your Memorandum) yet you must give me leave to say, that your definition overthrows itself. For, the Nature and Essence of Schism, 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 Schism is not a separation of one part from another, but the Church which remains after such a sparation made in external Communion, is one whole Church 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 said, destroys itself, as if one could be cut off from the Church by Schism, and yet remain a part thereof. A man divided from the Church, remains 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, Turkism, or Paganism, 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 associates, did not separate from themselves; seeing by their very separation, they ceased to be any part of the Church, and the Church remained one whole, and so by their not separation from themselves as men, you cannot infer 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 hereafter. Only I observe now, if (as you say Pag: 264. N. 30.) the sin of Schism be a causeless separation from the external 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 do. 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 mean you? That Faith whereby one believes, and that Obedience, whereby one obeys all the Definitions, and Decrees of the Church? If so; than you suppose him to be united with the Church, not only in Faith, but also in external Communion; because nothing is more strictly commanded, than such an union and Communion; but then, you are out of our case, of being separated from the Church. If you mean, Faith and Obedience to God; it is impossible, even by your own confession, that one should obey God, and divide himself from the external Communion of all Churches without cause, and therefore he cannot by any such imaginary Obedience be a member of the Church. You say (Pag: 272. N. 53.) It concerns every man who separates from any Church's Communion, even as much as his salvation is worth, to look most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary: For, unless it be necessary it can hardly be sufficient: Therefore you suppose, there is a strict command not to separate from any Church's 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 believe what he has revealed, when it is sufficiently declared to have been revealed by him: Therefore, say I, whosoever opposes a Point, though not Fundamental in itself, yet sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, fails in the condition of Obedience required for salvation, and so wants one of the requisites, which constitute a man a member of the Church; therefore he leaves the Church, and Protestants erring in such Points, divide themselves from the Church; and certain it is, that some of them must err in Points at least not Fundamental. 75. Thirdly; The Church essentially implies not only Faith, but also external Communion in Sacraments, Liturgy, and public worship of God; therefore whosoever leaves the external Communion of a Church, he cannot but leave the Church, as being divided from it, in a thing essential 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 united together in profession of true Faith, and Communion of Sa●rament●. And Calvin (Lib: 4. Institut: Cap.: §. 4.) saith; We cannot have two or three Churches, but Christ must be divided. Whereby it appears, that men cannot be of one Church, unless they be united in one common mystical 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 united in one common link, or whole Body. Different Kingdoms, and Commonwealths, may chance to have the same Laws, Customs, Statutes, yea and the same form of Government; yet that is not enough, to denominate them one Kingdom, or Common wealth; because they have not any such union, or Communion, as may make them one mystical Body. Dr. Lawd, (Pag: 300.) Affirms, that the Donatists agreed in Faith with the Catholic 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 union in some Whole, cannot make one a member or part of one Church. But what need I prove, a thing evident in itself? The very Definition of Schism, taken properly, as it is distinct from Heresy, implies an agreement in Faith, and that supposed, it is a separation in external Communion only; therefore similitude in Faith, is not sufficient to make that one be not truly said to forsake the Church. Jews and Turks believe one God, and so do Christians, and yet they cannot be said to be in Communion with Christians, even in that Point which all of them believe; in regard they make not on mystical Body. I may eat the same meat, which an excommunicate person eats, but I may not eat with him, not he with me: So Jew's and Turks believe some Truth which we believe, yet properly speaking, they believe not with us, because they themselves are divided from us. One thing therefore it is, to believe the same Point, and another to be united in the belief thereof. Neither is there in this particular, any difference between Fundamental, and not Fundamental Points. For, though one believe all the same Fundamental Points, which another believes, yet he believes them not with him, because, as I said, the believers themselves, are divided in Communion, one from another. Otherwise, if you will needs have all those to be of one Church, who believe all Fundamental Points; it will follow, that there is no Schism at all, as it is distinguished from Heresy. For, that doctrine being supposed, if one believe all Fundamental Points, he is no Schismatic. If he err in any Fundamental, or Necessary Point, he is an Heretic: Therefore Schism, in this way, shall never be distinguished from Heresy, which yet is contrary to your own doctrine; which we cited above out of your (Pag: 271. N. 51.) Where you say; We are not to learn the difference between Schism and heresy. For, Heresy we conceive, an obstan●te defence of any error against, any necessary Article of the Christian Faith: And Schism a causeless separation of one part of the Church from another. You do, not declare, wherein this separation of one part of the Church from another, consists. But seeing you distinguish Schism from Heresy, and affirm, that separation by Heresy, consists in Errors against any necessary Article of Faith, Schism must consist in a separation from the external Communion of that Church, with which one agrees in all necessary Articles of the Christian Faith, and consequently, agreement in Fundamental Articles, is not sufficient to constitute men members of one Church, seeing it may stand with Schism, taken in the most proper sense, which you say separates one part of the Church from another: And therefore whosoever divides himself from the external Communion of the Church, is divided from the Church itself; and so your Memorandum that to leave the Church, and to leave the external Communion of a Church, is not the same thing, is a mere ungrounded speculation. Here also that which I have often told you, offers itself to be insinuated; that Errors in Points not Fundamental, sufficiently propounded as testified by God, become Fundamental, that is, damnable, and are true heresies, as Potter grants; and, as I shown out of your own words, they who are guilty of such Errors, observe 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 therefore a separation by Errors in Points not Fundamental, is not pure Schism, but more; it is Heresy; and separates a man from the Church, though he believe all Points which are Fundamental of themselves; so that, as I said, agreement in such Points which are Fundamental of themselves, is in no wise sufficient, to make one a member of the Church; yea and beside agreement in belief, both of Fundamental, and not Fundamental Points, it is essentially required, that he be not divided from her external Communion; and yourself say (Pag: 264. N. 30.) A causeless separation from the external Communion of any Church is the sin of Schism; which were not true, if the same belief of all Fundamentals (yea and unfundamentalls also) were of itself, sufficient to denominate, and conserve one a member of the Church. For, than he should remain such a member by that belief alone, though he did causelessly divide himself from the external Communion of the Church. And therefore we must conclude out of your own grounds against your last Memorandum, that to leave the Church, and to leave the external Communion of a Church, is the same thing. And thus, having confuted your Remembrances, whereby you pretended to excuse yourself from Schism, let us now see what you can object against us. 76. Object: 1. You say (Pag: 132. N. 11.) If you would at this time propose a form of Liturgy, which both side should lawful, and then they would not join with you in this liturgy, you might have some colour then to say, they renounce your Communion absolutely. 77. Answer. What a Chimaera do you fancy to yourself, and propose to us? First: you must suppose, that the Roman Church holds all essential, and Fundamental 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 Maintained for affirming, that Potter acknowledged us, to hold all substantial and Fundamental 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 wherein the essence of the Church consists. And therefore no form of Liturgy, can be sufficient to warrant your joining with us, if we err in Points Fundamental of themselves. 78. Secondly; no Form of Liturgy could be lawful, in case it did contain any Fuudamentall Error, and that you confess it impossible, to know, what Points in particular be Fundamental, it follows, that you cannot know what form of Liturgy is lawful, and so in practice, you cannot communicate with one another, nor with us, nor with any Church, at all, as not knowing, whether in their Liturgy there be not contained some Fundamental Errors; yea no man can frame any set Form to himself, but may fear lest it contain some such Error. Neither can you avoid this difficulty, by saying, as you are wont to do, that whosoever believes all that is evident in Scripture, is sure to believe all Fundamental Points. For, we speak not now in general, of what every one believes for himself, but in practice, of a particular Form of Liturgy, wherein he communicates with others, which cannot be lawful, if it contain any Fundamental Error, as well it may, for ought you can know, who profess not to know, what errors be Fundamental; unless for a short Form of Liturgy, you will propose the whole Bible, which in your grounds is the only way to know all Fundamental 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 lawful Governous of, and Ministers in the Church, and consequently, by whom the public Liturgy, is to be lawfully read to the people. For, seeing we believe your pretended Bishops in England, to be no more than mere Lay men (as those Protestants who stand for Episcopacy, must hold the same of Ministers not ordained by Bishops) what Liturgy, can be found common to Catholics, and Protestants, or to Protestants, among themselves, seeing there can be no agreement, who be Lawful Ministers, for celebrating the Liturgy, officiating, reading public Service, and preaching to the people? 80. Fourthly; I must put you in mind, that you and Potter affirm (and the thing in itself is very certain, and clear) that it is Fundamental to a Christians Faith, not to deny any Truth sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, though in itself not Fundamental; and therefore there can be no Communion, with any Church, which denies any such Point, because she ceases to be a Church. Seeing then, you say we err in such Points, and divers learned Protestants hold with us, 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 Form 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 lawful Form of Liturgy. They may be a company of men, but not one community, Communion, or Church of faithful Believers. 11. Fifthly; You teach, that, minimum ut sic, is to believe, That God is, and is a rewarde●. Would you have a Liturgy so short as to contain only this point, for fear of Error, if it should contain more? And yet even in this one point, there could be agreement only in words among Protestants themselves, or with us. For, in the sense, I have showed elswere, that Protestants disagree about Faith, or what to believe 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 believe damnable errors, even in that one Point in which they must be supposed to agree, as in a Form common to all; in Errors, I say, damnable, as being repugnant to the Testimony of that God, whom they pretend to worship? Jews and Turks, believe that God is, and that he is a rewarder, and Philosophers believed that there is a God, and some of them, in general, that he is a rewarder. What a sight would it be, to behold all these in one Church, or Choir of Christians, as agreeing in this general Liturgy? Of which, Jews, Turks, and Philosophers might say in your own words; Behold we propose a Form of Liturgy which all sides hold to be lawful: Why then do you not join with us? If you answer them, because they err in other points; they might reply, what is that to the purpose, as long as a necessity of professing those Errors, is not imposed upon you? Or if it be not lawful, to communicate with men of different Faith and Religion, though they do as it were abstract from that in which they differ, how can catholics communicate with you, or Protestants with one another? or how can you say (If you would propose a Form of Liturgy which both sides hold lawful, and then they would not join with you in this Liturgy, you might have some colour then to say, they renounce your Communion absolutely) seeing men of different faith cannot communicate together, even in a Form of Liturgy which both sides hold lawful? Or if they may; you cannot refuse your Communion to Jews and Turks, in such a common Form of Liturgy. I therefore conclude, that either you may communicate with Jews, Turks etc. or else you must confess, that men of different faith cannot communicate in one Liturgy, and public worship of God, whatsoever imaginary Form be proposed, and that you renounce our Communion absolutely; which you deny against all Truth, and your own grounds, and the common grounds of Christianity, (unless you will make up one Church of Jews, Turks, Philosophers, condemned Heretics, and whatsoever different Sects) and therefore you cannot avoid the just imputation of Schism. 82. Morover, we know, you disliked divers Points, in the public Service of the Protestants Church of England, as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, the Creed of S. Athanasius, &c: Now I ask, whether you could with a good conscience be present at the English Service, or no? If you say, you could, because your intention was carried only to that which was good and true, and not to those particulars, which you did believe to be false, and errors; why may not Protestants, on their part, be present at Mass, and our public worship of God? And why do they allege, as a cause of their forsaking our external communion in Liturgy, the corruptions thereof? Or why do you require, a Form of Liturgy, which all sides hold lawful, if one may be present, at some corrupt worship of God, so that he intent 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 Protestant church of England transcribed divers things, into their book of common prayer whereby they prove themselves true Heretics, or choosers, accepting or rejecting what they please; and deceyving simple people, as if there were small difference betwixt English Protestants and Catholics. Or how could you wickedly persuade catholics, to go to Protestant Service, which you know we believe to contain Errors against our Faith and Religion, and yet pretend that Protestants were obliged to forsake our Communion in Liturgy etc. Or if they were not obliged to forsake us, how can they be excused from Schism 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 public worship of God, or Liturgy: And the further reason of this, because such a communicating, or Communion, were indeed a real, and practical approbation of such a Communion, and of such a Church, stained with Errors, and consequently, how can one Protestant communicate with an other whom they believe to err in points of Faith, and yet think they are obliged not to communicate with us? Truly they cannot possibly give any reason for this their proceeding, and, as I may say, acception of persons, the merit or demerit of the cause being the same. For, this Rule (it is not lawful for men of different Faith to communicate in Liturgy, and public worship of God) is universally true, and the contrary is only a ready way to breed confusion, stisle all zeal, overthrow Religion, and is of its own nature, intrinsecè malum, though there were no scandal, danger of being perverted, and the like, as really always there are. Certainly, if in any case a Catholic can be said to approve, and participate with Heretics, as such, it is by communion in the same Liturgy, and divine offices; and never more, than when it happens to be with such Heretics, as did purposely reject the Liturgy of Catholics, 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 he in fact consents, and gives approbation, who refuseth not, to be present at their Service so opposite ●o our Liturgy. Whosoever considers the zeal of all Antiquity, in abhorring the least shadow of communion with Heretics, will have just cause to lament the coldness of them, who seek 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 faithful with the infidel, as we have heard our adversaries confess, every Error 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 pertain to them, lest you be enwrapped in their sin. What then shall we say of those, who will not departed, I say not, from the tabernacles, but even from the public Service of Heretics, and will touch, and be of the same communion with them? If the Apostle said to Titus, who was a Bishop, and in no danger of being perverted, avoid an heretical man; could he have said, Fly the man, but not communion with him? If in any case, certainly in this, we must call to mind our Blessed Saviour's saying, He that denies me, I will deny him. And, what doth it avail a man to gain the whole world if he lose his own soul? To which purpose, Tertullian sayeth (de Coron: Mil: Cap 11.) Non admittit status Fidei allegationem necessitatis. Nulla est necessitas delinquendi quibus una est necessitas non delinquendi. The condition of Christian Faith cannot admit for excuse of a thing not lawful, to say, they were necessitated thereto. There can be no necessity of sinning, for them, who acknowledge 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 us 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 moral affair, we would guide souls by metaphysicke, the next step will be, to take the Zuinglian supper, not, forsooth, as it is received by them, in nature of a Sacrament, but intending only to eat it, as it is no more than bread, and wine; or as Christians may wear the apparel which Infidels use according to the civil custom of their country. But in matters of this nature, middle ways 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 Douai Testament, makes this profitable Annotation; Such zealous expostulation is necessary to all Neutrals in Religion, who are neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm: such as Angels detest. (Apoc: 3.) Less harm it is (if we respect the mischief which may accrue to others) for a man to profess Heresy, than professing himself a Catholic, to be cause, that others follow his Doctrine, and example, in communicating with Heretics, in that which they are wont to call, Divine Service. What a monster may it justly seem for Catholics; at home, abroad, in their pulpits, and all other occasions, to impugn and speak against heresies, and the next day to be seen in the same Church, at the same public service, with Heretics? This Doctrine of the unlawfulness for Catholics to be present at the service, or sermons, of Heretics, is taught by those incomparable, holy, zealous, and learned Authors of the Annotations upon the Rheims Testament; Cardinal Alane; Richard Bristo; William 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 times, before any who now should presume to teach the contrary? Upon the whole matter therefore, I conclude, that it is impossible to propound any Form of Liturgy, in which both sides can hold it lawful to communicate. And, therefore Luther and his fellows did absolutely renounce the Communion of all Churches, by professing a contrary Faith, and ceasing to communicate with them in Liturgy, and public worship of God; which is the thing you denied in your Objection. 83. Object: 2. (Pag: 263. N. 26.) You say to your Adversary; That although it were granted Schism, to leave the external Communion of the visible Church, in what state or case soever it be, and that Luther and his followers were Schismatiks, for leaving the external Communion of all visible Churches: Yet you fail exceedingly of clearing the other necessary Point undertaken by you, that the Roman Church was then the visible Church. For, neither do Protestant's (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 Catholic, or the whole Church: The latter, a particular Church, or a part of the Catholic. And therefore suppose we should grant what by Argument you can never evince, that your Church had these notes, yet would it by no means follow, that your Church were the visible Church, but only a visible Church: Not the whole Catholic Church, but only a part of it. But then besides, where doth Dr. P●tter acknowledge 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 Fundamental, necessary to salvation? 84. Answer. Your conscience could not but tell you, that Charity Maintained had evidently cleared this Point, and answered your Objections (Part: 1. N. 47. Pag: 221.) in these words: that the Roman Church (I speak 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 Chair 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 Catholic Church, out of which Luther departed, is proved by your own confession, who assign for Notes of the Church, the true Preaching of God's 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 Fundamental, or necessary to salvation; and for that very cause, you think to clear yourself from Schism, 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 fellows were borne and baptised in the Roman Church, and that she was the Church, out of which they departed, is notoriously known: And therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ, and hope of salvation, unless you will acknowledge yourself to deserve the just imputation of Schism. Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholic by reason of (pretended) corruptions, not Fundamental. For, yourself avouch, and endeavour to prove, that the true Catholic Church may err in such Points. Morover, I hope you will not so much as go about to prove, that when Luther risen, 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 days agreed with Rome, and other nations with England: and therefore either Christ had no Visible Church upon Earth, or else you must grant, that it was the Church of Rome. A truth so manifest, that those Protestants who affirm the Roman Church to have lost the Nature and Being of a true Church, do by inevitable consequence grant, that for divers Ages Christ had no Visible Church an earth: From which Error, because Dr. Potter disclaimeth, he must of necessity maintain, that the Roman Church is free from Fundamental, and damnable Errors, and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ, and Hope of salvation. And if, (saith he ibidem) any Zealops amongst us have proceeded to heavyer Censures their zeal may be excused, but their Charity and wisdom cannot be justified. Thus Charity Maintained in that place; and then immediately proves clearly; that the Grecians, Waldenses, Wicklef, Huss, Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Aethiopians, or Abyssines, either held damnable heresies, confessed to be such both by Catholics, and Protestants, or else that they agree with us catholics, in the particular doctrines, wherein Protestants have forsaken us. This being so; who can deny, but that if Luther and his followers were Schismatiks for leaving the external communion of all visible Churches (which for the present you are content to suppose) the Roman Church taken in this sense, which you have heard Charity Maintained declare, was that visible Church; seeing there was no true Church of Christ, but the Roman in that sense, in which she is not a particular, but the universal Church, including all true Churches. And yet by way of supererogation Charity Maintained 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 himself to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole. Since therefore in the same place he expressly acknowledges, the Church of Rome to be a member of the Body of Christ, and that it is clear they forsook Her, and profess to have done so; it follows evidently, that they forsook the whole, and therefore are most properly Schismatiks, for leaving the Roman Church, whether you take it for a particular, or for the universal, Church; that is, for all Churches which agreed with Her: and so your instance (P. 263. N. 27.) that the foot might say to the head, I acknowledge 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 foot: Because when we say, the Roman Church is the universal Church, we speak not of Her as a particular Church, or part of the whole, but taken with all other Churches, and consequently as a Whole; and than you are not to ask, whether the foot be the whole Body, but whether head, foot, and all other parts taken together, be not the whole Body: which if you cannot deny, you must confess that your own instance is against yourself, and for us. 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 Catholic, or the whole Church; but of a particular Church, or a part of the Catholic. But out of what we have said, this appears to be a plain 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 joined 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 vital actions, be a Note or sign of the presence of our soul, or life, in every part of our Body, it must also be a sign of life in the whole Body, consisting of all its parts. Will you have the whole, an Idea Platonica, separate from all parts? how then can the true preaching of the word be a sign of every part of the Church, and not of the whole? Or will you have the whole or universal Church want an essential note of a true Church? But as every where, so here you take more upon you in behalf of Protestants, than you have commission from them to do. The English Protestant Church (Artic: 19) saith; The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered. Where you see, the visible Church is called a congregation; and therefore no such necessary difference passes between the Church, and a Congregation or Church, as you confidently affirm. Will you say, that the Church which you will have to signify the universal or whole Church, is a congregation, that is, a particular Church? And yet the said (19 Article) saith, The Church of Christ is a congregation that is, according to your Divinity, a particular Church? Or by what Logic can you say, that the Subjectum in a proposition can be of a larger extent than the Praedicatum, and the universal 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 marks eannor be absent from the Church, it is no longer A true Church, than it hath these marks. And (Pag: 69.) The only absence of them doth make a nullity of the Church. Behold, Preaching of the word &c: Marks both of the and a Church; And these marks are said to be essential to both; yea both the and a, are applied to the same Church: And, as I said, it is strange in you, to imagine that what is essential to every part, must not necessarily be essential to the whole; or, that the whole must participate of the parts, and not of that which is essential to them: or, that the parts by being united to compound one whole, must lose that which was essential to them before such an union or composition, that is, that they must lose themselves, by losing that which was essential to them. But if these clear reasons will not serve, at least be content to be convinced by your own 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 Catholic Church, but the society of men, whereof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company is, or may be guilty of many sins daily committed against knowledge and conscience? Now, I would fame understand, why one Error in Faith, especially if not Fundamental, should not consist with the holiness of the Church, as well as many and great sins committed against knowledge 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 divers Churches whereof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company hath for essential Notes, the true preaching of God's Word, and due administration of Sacraments? This instance convinces ad hominem, and upon supposition, that you will make good your own inference, which indeed is in itself of no force, in regard, that to sin or err, is not assential to every part of the Church, as preaching of the word is essential to every particular, and consequently to the whole Church; and therefore God may give his assistance, to keep men from sin and error, as he shall be pleased; and having promised, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the whole Church, and not having made any such general promise to private persons, which neither are, nor do represent the whole Church, you cannot infer, that the whole Church, or a General Council, may fall into Error, because every particular private person, taken apart, may be deceived. Your parity also between sin and error, is unworthy of a Divine. Faith externally professed, or the exterior profession of Faith, is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church; but justifying grace, or sanctity, or Charity is not. Yourself grant, that Error in Fundamental Points, destroys a Church, and that every particular person ceases to be a member of the Church, by every such error. 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, upon pretence of corruptions in Her doctrine, even in Points not Fundamental of themselves. It appears then, that errors in Faith, though not Fundamental, preponderate any, or all, most grievous corruptions in manners, in order to the maintaining or breaking the Communion of the Church. Do you not expressly say (Pag: 255. N. 6.) Many members of the Visible Church have 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 supernatural verityes which God hath revealed in Christ, is essential 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 heretical doctrine, and yet be a Church; mark here also, that the, and a are applied to the same Church. Dr. Lawd (Sect: 10. Pag: 36.) Whatsoever is Fundamental to Faith, is Fundamental to the Church, which is one by unity of Faith. It is then apparent, that there is great difference, between Faith, and charity, for as much as concerns the constituting one a member of the Church, and the contrary is of dangerous consequence, as if by deadly sin, every Bishop, Prelate, Pastor, Priest, Prince etc. must necessarily cease to be members of Christ's Church. 86. But here I must observe two things. First; If entire profession of those supernatural verityes, which God hath revealed in Christ, be essential to the Church: If the true Church cannot fall into Heresy, and that it is an impudent slander to affirm that Protestants say so; if the Church cannot hold any Heretical Doctrine, and yet be a Church, as we have heard out of Dr. Lawd, Whitaker, Fulke, and Field, respectiuè, it follows, that the Church cannot fall into error against any Truth, sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, whether it be of itself Fundamental or not; because every such error is Heresy, as contrarily we exercise a true Act of Faith, by believing a Truth, because it is testified by God, though the thing, of itself, might seem never so small. And (Pag: 101. N. 127.) you speak to this very purpose, saying, Heresy is nothing but a manifest deviation from, and an opponsition to the Faith. And Potter (Pag: 97.) saith; The Catholic Church is careful to ground all her declarations in matters of Faith upon the Divine Authority of Gods written Word. And therefore whosoever wilfully opposeth a judgement 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 unto him. And (Pag: 250.) Where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded; there he that opposeth, is convinced of error, and he who is thus convinced, is an Heretic. 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 prove him that gainsaieth any such truth, to be an Heretic, and obstinate opposer of the Faith. Field (Lib: 2. of the Church, Cap: 3.) saith; freedom from Fundament all error, may be found among Heretics. From whence it follows, that error against any Point of Faith, though not Fundamental, is Heresy; and yourself (Pag: 23. N. 27.) say; There is, as matters now stand, as great necessity of believing those Truths of Scripture, which are not Fundamental, as those that are. If then every error, 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 Heretical doctrine, and yet be a Church, it follows, that either the Church cannot fall into any error, even not Fundamental, and so Protestants are Schismatiks, for leaving Her upon pretence of errors; or that, it is no impudent slander to say, that Protestants say, the Church may fall into Heresy, as Fulke affirms it to be, seeing she may fall into errors against Faith, and all such errors are heresies. Besides, seeing we have heard Potter confess (Pag: 97.) that the Catholic Church is careful to ground all Her declarations in matters of Faith upon the Divine Authority of Gods written word; how can they avoid the Note of Heresy, by opposing Her Declarations; or of Schism by leaving Her Communion? By all which it is manifest, that Heretics have no constancy in their doctrine, but are forced to affirm and deny, and by perpetual contradictions overthrow their own grounds, and Assertions. Howsoever, for our present purpose, we have proved, even out of Protestants themselves, that your parity between errors against Faith, and sins against Charity, is repugnant to all Divinity, seeing external profession of Faith, is necessary to constitute one a member of the Church, but Charity is not; and chief I infer that the Catholic Church is not subject to any error, though not Fundamental, since it is confessed that she cannot fall into Heresy, and every error against any revealed Truth, is Heresy. 87. The second thing I was to observe briefly is this. Charity Maintained speaking expressly of errors in Faith, which are incompatible with the being of a true Church; you to disguise the matter, ask why error may not consist with the holiness of this Church as well as many and great sins. Whereas Charity Maintained did not speak of holiness, but of true Faith, which is essential to the Church, and every member thereof, as justifying Grace, and Charity, and Holiness (in this sense) are not; since many grievous sinners are true members of the Church. We profess, I grant, in the Creed, The Holy Catholic 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, upon that Article of the Creed. 88 You ask: Where doth Dr. Potter acknowledge 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 Fundamental or necessary to salvation? 89. Answer: It shall be proved hereafter, to your small credit, that yourself, Potter, and other Protestants, acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church, and not to err in any Fundamental, and Essential Point; and it is clear, that she could not be a true Church, unless she had for the substance the true preaching of the word, and due administration of the Sacraments, which to be essential Notes of the Church, and without which, the Church ceases to be a Church, we have proved out of Protestants; and then, how can the Roman Church conserve the Essence of a Church, if it want what is essential to a Church? Indeed you are inexcusable, to ask in this place this Question, seeing in that very place which you cite, Charity Maintained expressly alleges Potter seeking to free himself and other Protestants from Schism, because they do not cut off from the Body of Christ, and hope of Salvation, our Church; which certainly they must do, unless they believe that she wanted nothing Fundamental or necessary to Salvation. 90. In your next Page (264. N. 27.) you speak thus to your Adversary: In vain have you troubled yourself in proving, that we cannot pretend, that either the Greeks', Waldenses, Wickleffists, Hussites, Muscovites, Armenians, Georgians, Abyssines were then the visible Church. For all this discourse proceeds from a false and vain supposition, and begs another Point in Question between us, which is, that some Church of one denomination, and one Communion (as the Roman, the Greek &c:) must be always, exclusively to all other Communions, the whole visible Church. 91. Answer. Charity Maintained being to prove, that the Church of Rome, that is, all Visible Churches, dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chair of Peter, (as he expressly declares himself) was that visible Catholic 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 errors, condemned by Protestants themselves, which therefore they must deny to have been members of their Church: and therefore we must either say, that Christ had no true Church on earth, or else 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 Catholic Church, there being then no other true Church. Now what think you, was this labour in vain? Certainly it was not; whether we consider the end which I have declared, or another of no small moment, connected with this; which is, as I touched above; That whereas Protestants were wont to make ignorant persons believe, that before Luther they had some visible Protestant Church, and to that end would be naming, the Waldenses, Wicklefists, Hussits, and such others, Charity Maintained demonstrated, that those men held damnable Errors, against both Catholics and Protestants, and in many Points agreed with us against Protestants, and therefore could not be Protestants, though they casually agreed with them in some Points. In the mean time, Protestants have no reason to give you thanks, for leaving them, and in fact acknowledging, that Charity Maintained had evident reason for what he said, and that the old plea of Protestants, had no ground of truth. 92. You say, Charity Maintained begs a Point in Question between us, 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? Charity Maintained was so far from supposing or affirming some particular Church of one denomination to be always, exclusively to all other, the whole visible Church, that as you have 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 Diocese of Rome, and therefore that not any particular Church, but all true Churches, are the whole Visible Church. 93. Object 3. Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 151. N. 2.) saith: Because Schism will be found to be a division from the Church, which could not happen, unless there were always a visible Church, we will prove, that in all Ages there hath been such a visible congregation of faithful 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 Schism might now be, and be a division from the present visible Church. 94. Answer. Charity Maintained said truly, That seeing Schism is a division from the Church, it cannot happen (for that is his express word) but when there is a Church: not always, unless 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 Schism in all those Ages. The Fathers, Doctors, and Divines of all Ages, speak and treat of Schism, as of a subject and sin, which morally and ordinarily, and always might happen, (and which de facto did happen too often, as heresies did, and were inpugned by the writers of every Age) which they could not have done, if they had not supposed the Existence of a Church, through all Ages and Time's: And much less would they have done so, if they had ever imagined, that of sixteen hundred years and more, there was to be no true Church for the space of a thousand, within the compass of which time, many of those Divines did live, and never dreamt that in Defining, and frequent treating of Schism, 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 prove that a thing may be defined, though it be not existent) which they were sure to see the next ensuing summer, but rather a conceit little better than a Chimaera, or a non ens, which had once existed, though they could not tell how short a time, and then disappeared as if it had never been. And by this is answered, what you object in the said Page 260. against the saying of Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 165. N. 11.) That, all Divines by defining Schism to be a division from the Church, suppose, that there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to departed. 95. Object 4. (Pag: 254. N. 4.) you cite Charity Maintained as saying thus: That, supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church, were guilty of Schism, it is certainly consequent, that all who persist in the division must be so likewise; which, say you is not so certain as you pretend. But the word certainly which you set down as the word of Charity maintained, and upon which you ground your Objection, is not to be found in his words (Pag: 151.) which you pretend to allege. Yet because the thing in itself is certainly true, let us hear what you can object to the contrary. You say, they which altar without necessary cause the present government of any state Civil or Ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault; whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration, and no the utmost of their power oppose a change, though to the former state, when continuance of time hath once settled the present. 96. Answer. It is no less than great profaneness in you, to make a parity between a Schism from God's Church, which is intrinsecè, and essentially unlawful, and alterations in a Civil or Ecclesiastical state, for things accidental, and of their nature indifferent. For, if you suppose those alterations to be of their own nature unlawful, and sinful, they can never be innocent, who continue them, nor can any continuance of time establish them. Luther and his followers, separated themselves from the Church, by sinful profession of Faith, contrary in many Points to the belief of all Churches (for you suppose, for the present, that their separation was causeless and sinful, which is to be noted) and will you say, it is lawful to continue in a false profession of Faith, against ones conscience, because others have begun it? How often do you profess, that it is always damnable to dissemble, or speak against ones conscience in matters of Faith? Well then, if (upon supposition) he be obliged to profess the whole Catholic Faith, he must among other Points believe, that it is absolutely unlawful to communicate with Heretics in their Sacraments, and that there can be no just cause, to live out of the Communion of the Church, and that it is unlawful, either to begin or continue a division from Her, and that they are obliged to return to Her Communion. And this I prove out of your own words (Pag: 312. N. 112.) (it should be 113.) where you speak to Charity Maintained in this manner: You spend a great deal of reading and wit, and reason against some men, who pretending to honour and believe the Doctrine and Practice of the visible Church (you mean your own) and condemning their forefathers who forsook her, say they would not have done so, yet remain divided from Her Communion. Which men, in my judgement, cannot be defended. For, if they believe the doctrine of your Church, then must they believe this doctrine, that they are to return to your Communion. And therefore if they do not so, it cannot be avoided but that they must be a'vtocatacritoi. Behold, whosoever believes as we do, must also believe, that they cannot continue this Schism begun by others. I wish all would reflect upon this grant, which evidence of truth hath drawn from you, though it hath cost you a contradiction against your saying, that a Schism with us might be begun with sin, and yet they be innocent who continue it. Your captious Words, that, Charity Maintained should not have written against these kind of men, in a work which he professes to have written merely against Protestants, shall be answered in their proper place. 97. Object 5. Charity Maintained (Part 1. Pag: 152. N. 3.) said Charity uniteth all the members of the Church in one Mystical Body, Which you say, (Pag: 255. N. 6.) is manifestly untrue; for many of them have 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 abstain from censures. What Charity Maintained said, was not his alone, but the Doctrine of all Divines, and in particular of the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas, whose express words he cited, wherein (2.2. Quest: 39 Art 1. in Corp:) he defines Schism; A voluntary separation from the unity of that Charity, whereby all the members of the Church are united. Peccatum, saith he, Schismatis propriè, est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intenditse ab unitate separare, quam Charitas facit. In which words of this holy Doctor, you have both the affirmation of Charity Maintained and the reason thereof; That as Heresy is opposite to Faith, so Schism to Charity: and for that cause, Heresy and Schism are two distinct vices. Otherwise, how will you distinguish them? In the same place, as also (N. 7.) Charity Maintained alleges S. Austin, (Lib. 1. de Fid: ad Simp: Cap 10.) saying, Heretics corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things: but Schismatiks by wicked divisions break from fraternal Charity, although they believe what we believe. And (Lib: 1. the Serm: Dom: in Mon: Cap. 5.) Many Heretics, under the name of Christians deceiving men's souls, 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 love of our neighbour doth not work evil: which if they had, they would not tear in pieces the Body of Christ, which is the Church. Do you not see that this Saint still opposes Heresy to Faith, and Schism to that Charity, which unites the members of God's Church, in one mystical Body which Schism divides? Also the same Saint says (Ep: 204.) Being out of the Church, and divided from the heap of unity, and the bond of Charity, thou shouldest be punished with eternal death, though thou shouldest be burned alive for the name of Christ. Now if many of the members of the Church have no Charity, as you say, they must be Schismatiks; or if they be not, they have that Charity which Schismatiks want, and consequently it is untrue, that they have no Charity. Will you have them be members of the Church, because they are not divided from her by Schism, and yet not be members of the Church in regard they have no Charity? Potter (Pag: 42.) saith; Though faith be kept entire, yet if Charity be wanting, the unity of the Church is disturbed, her unton dissolved. Schism is no less damnable than Heresy. Why do you not object against your client, That, many members of the Church have no Charity, and therefore that it is manifestly untrue, that if Charity be wanting, the unity of the Church is disturbed, her union dissolved, seeing, men may be members of the Church, though they want all Charity, and consequently, if Charity be wanting, it is not necessary that the union of the Church must be dissolved? Or if you grant to Potter, that Charity is the cause that the unity of the Church is not disturbed, and Her union not dissolved, what is this but to say with Charity Maintained; That, All the members of the visible Church are by Charity united in one mystical Body? Why is Her union 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 conformable to him in all Points of Doctrine, necessary and profitable, then Luther separated not from this Church, but adjoined himself to it: Not indeed in place, which was not necessary, not in external Communion, which was impossible, but by the union of Faith and Charity. If one should ask; how do you know that Luther had Charity; or whether he might not have 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, and yourself, will confute your objection against Charity Maintained, and show 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 unite himself to that imaginary Church, or else 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 Schism, though he want that Charity, which is incompatible with deadly sin, and inseparable from justifying Grace, upon condition, that he be innocent of that vice against Charity, which we call Schism, and puts a man so far 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 public Worship of God. Neither is there any necessity, that whosoever offends against a virtue, for example, Charity, must offend in all Excesses or Defects, or other offences, 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 therefore Charity Maintained (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 concur 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 therefore loves not God above all things, may love 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 and communicate. 99 Object: 6. (Pag: 255. N. 5.) You cite the words of Charity Maintained as if he said: All those which a Christian ought to esteem 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 esteem those his neighbours, who are not members of the true Church. 100 Answer. It were strange, if you did not know, that in this particular, we have no common or universal Tenet; neither can there be any difficulty in the thing itself, but the Question must have much, only de nomine; and Bellarm: teaches, Faith to be necessary that one may be said to be united by internal union to the Body of Christ, which is the Church: And though he holds that secret infidels belong to the Church, yet he expressly declares, that some other Catholic 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 thereby, this Question to be only de modo loquendi, of the manner of speaking. So far 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 Maintained say, that the Catholic Church signify one company of Faithful people; faithful, I say, by internal Faith, and not only by the external profession of it? He saith no such thing, as appears by his words cited in the beginning of your Objection. And therefore, seeing he doth not express, whether they must be faithful by true internal Faith, or only by external profession of the true Faith, but his words being general, they are certainly true in all opinions; to wit, that Faith is required to make one a member of the Church, not determining, whether that Faith must be internal, or whether an outward profession be sufficient to that effect. Sure I am this is no faithful dealing in you. 101. Object: 7. In this same (Pag: 255. N. 5.) You allege Charity Maintained as if he said: All those which a Christian ought to esteem neighbours, do concur to make one company, which is the Church: And then you add these words: which is false: For a Christian is to esteem those his neighbours, who are not members of the true Church. 102. Answer. Charity Maintained never said, that all those which a Christian is to esteem 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 concur 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 divers persons concur to make one Church, and therefore they may be so considered. But where doth Charity Maintained say, all those which a Christian is to esteem his neighbours, do concur to make one Church? This particle (all) and the words (is to esteem) are your falsifications not the words of Charity Maintained, who spoke of Heresy, and Schism, which can happen only amongst Christians: And therefore although even Pagans and infidels ought to be esteemed our neighbours, yet they cannot concur to make one congregation which we call the Church, which were the words of Charity Maintained. 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 Maintained (Part: 1 Pag: 154 N. 4.) saith: The Catholic Church signify one Congregation, or Community of faithful people, and therefore implies not only Faith, to make them faithful believers, but also Communion, or common union, to make them one in Charity, which excludes separation and Division. Which words signify, that all the members of the Catholic Church must be united in such manner, as that they be not voluntarily divided one from another in Communion, against Charity, as we have declared both out of Catholic, and Protestant Divines. You, (Pag: 255. N. 9) cite him thus: All the members of the Catholic Church must of necessity be united in external Communion: Which, say you, certainly cannot be perpetually true. For, a man unjustly excommunicated, is not in the Church's Communion, yet he is still a member of the Church: And divers times it hath happened, that particular men, and particular Churches, have upon an overvavalued difference; either renounced Communion multually, or one of them separated from the other, and yet both have continued members of the Catholic Church. 104. Answer. I have declared above, the difference between separation from the Church by excommunication, even when it is valid, and just, and Division from it by Schism. But if the Excommunication be and invalide, the party censured remains still a member of the Church, and partakes of all common suffrages, being really in her Communion, though he may be obliged to abstain from some actions in foro externo and to be have himself, as if he were truly excommunicated. But Schism is a voluntary disobedience and separation from the Communion of the Church against Charity. Separation by excommunication is voluntary only in causa, in the sin for which it is imposed: Division by Schism is voluntary in itself, as being the very Division itself from the external Communion of the Church. You speak 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 them continued members of the Catholic Church. If you mean only a verbal separation, as I may term it, whereby one saith, or threatens, that he will have nothing to do with the other, you do but trifle, if afterward no effect follow upon such threats, 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, public prayers and worship of God; then, for preventing further inconvenience, or a Schism among faithful people, the supreme Pastor vicar of Christ, and Successor to S. Peter, must interpose his Authority, give 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 universal Church, whose Pastor he stubbornly disobeyes, and so becomes a formal Schismatic. For which cause Charity Maintained (N. 5.) said; The guilt of Schism may be contracted not only by division from the universal Church, but also by a separation from a particular Church, or Diocese, which agrees with the universal. Put case twoe particular dioceses or Churches refuse to communicate one with an other, when occasion offers itself, those twoe are neither members one of another, nor agree in external Communion; yet they may agree with the Universal Church, and so agreeing in a third, come to be united amongst themselves. One part 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 external Lommunion of the same, do go pari passu; and that therefore your Objection had no force, except to prove, as indeed it doth, the necessity of a living Judge in God's Church to prevent Schisms, and command Union, and to give us a Rule to judge, what true Schism is, and when it happens: For which cause S. Hierom (Lib: 1. contra Jovin:) affirms that S. Peter was chosen to be Head of the Church, to take away occasion of Schism, Inter duodecim (saith he) unus eligitur, ut capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio. 105. Object 9 Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Cap: 5. N. 3.) saith; Every heretic is a Schismatic: which you say (N. 8.) he must acknowledge false in those, who, though they deny, or doubt of some Point professed by your Church and so are heretics; you continue still in the Communion of the Church. 106. Answer. It is a shrewd sign, you want better matter, who object such trifles. First; though we should suppose Charity Maintained to have said, every Heretic is a Schismatic; and that Mr. Chillingworth saith the same, as indeed he doth (Pag: 339. N. 20.) in these words; Heretics, I confess do always separate from the Visible Church; Either you must absolve Charity Maintained from your own accusation, or else condemn yourself, and answer your own Argument. For, if every Heretic do always separate from the Visible Church, every Heretic must be a Schismatic. But yet, Secondly; Charity Maintained in the place you cite, affirms nothing of his own, but only alleges S. Thomas (22. Quest 39 Ar. 1 ad 3.) And therefore you cannot blame him if he cite that Saint aright, as I am certain he doth; for I have the Book under my eyes at this present, and find the citation to be very punctual. Neither is your objection of any force against S. Thomas. For, whosoever denies or doubts of any Point defined by the Church (as you will say the same of any Point evidently contained in Scripture) and professes exteriorly such his error, 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 above, that persons of different Faith cannot communicate in the public worship of God. Besides, Excommunication inflicted upon every Heretic, divides him from the Church, by a particular new title. If you suppose his Heresy to be merely internal; as it is incompletly Heresy, in order to a Visible Church, of which we speak; so also inchoatiuè, it excludes him from external 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 own damnation; and if the Church could judge de occultis, he might be expelled from them: In the mean time he does as a thief, making use of stolen goods; and so still there runs such a proportion between Heresy and Schism, as that every heretic is a Schismatic, completely, or incompletely, perfectly, or inchoatiuè, according to the degree of his being an Heretic. 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 forsook the whole corrupted Church, or the external Communion of it: but only that he forsook that part of it which was corrupted, and still would be so, and forsook not, but only reform another Part, which Part they themselves were, and I suppose you will not go about to persuade us, that they foorsooke themselves or their own Communion. And if you urge, that they themselves joined to no other Part, therefore they separated from the whole: I say it follows not, in as much as themselves were a part of it, and still continued so: and therefore 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 joined themselves, when they made their secession into the Aventine 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 have (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, different Sects of Protestants must separate from one another, no less than from us, which sequel you deny. 3. They did not separate from the Church, though they did separate from the external Communion of all Churches. 4. They separated not from the whole Church, because they separated not from themselves. Of the former evasions we have spoken already. This last is not hard to be confuted. 109. First, it contradicts yourself. For (Pag: 273. N. 55.) you say As for the external Communion of the visible Church, we have without scruple formerly granted, that, Protestants did forsake it, that is, renounce the practice 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, public worship of God, use of Sacraments, and the like, in which external communion consists they left the external communion of the visible Church, as we have heard you grant in your own 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 union and Communion whereof, external Communion is essential, and therefore that being altered, it is impossible, that it remains the same Church, in order to all Parts, or that the dividers continue to be a Part of that former Church, but they become a whole Schismatical conventicle, of their own. Your error proceeds, from not distinguishing between being a man, and being a member of the Church, as I declared heretofore. Suppose Luther and his followers, had denied some Fundamental 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, Turks, Jew's &c: may be Parts of one Commonwealth, but not of one Church: Therefore it is one thing to remain a Part of a Community of men, and another to be still a Part of God's Church, whatsoever that Church be supposed to be, whether Roman, or any other. For, this principle, That agreement in external Communion is necessary to make men members of the same Church, is universally true. Whereby 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 Laws, customs, and Government, they remained not Parts of the former Commonwealth, for as much as belonged to them; seeing they wholly divided themselves, erecting a new Community, or Commonwealth, of their own; 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 us; namely, that Luther and his fellows ceased to be a Part of the former Church, and erected a new whole Community of their own; and so your Argument comes to be retorted against yourself. 111. Thirdly. Whereas you suppose, that we will not go about to persuade you, that Luther and his followers forsook themselves, or their own Communion: I answer; I have small hope to persuade you any truth, that may seem to favour us catholics; And, for others, I need not persuade them, to believe that, which is evident of itself; namely that you will needs remain in a perpetual 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 clear in one, who falls into any error repugnant to some Fundamental Article, and so instantly ceases to be a member of the Church, as he was before, and in that respect, is morally divided from himself, as much as, est, and non est, are opposite. If of the same real common subject not destroyed, for example, of Socrates, we could say, existit & non existit, though for different times, we might truly say, that he were physically and really divided from himself: Now, the same subject is really capable of being and not being a member of the Church successively: Therefore we may say, he is divided from himself, and from his own Communion. For, as S. Ambrose saith most elegantly (Lib: 7. in Cap: 15. Lucae,) of the prodigal 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 mystical 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 seat of Saints on earth.) Etenim qui se a Christo separant (and Potter confesses, that whosoever separates himself 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 signify the number of all men, as men; of which a Schismatic remains a part, though not a part of the Church, as hath been said. 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 primitive pure Church, and brought in corruptions in Faith, Practice, Liturgy, and use of Sacraments, may truly be said to have been Heretics, by departing from the pure Faith; and schismatics, by dividing themselves from the external Communion, of the true uncorrupted Church, though it be supposed to be destroyed: therefore one may departed from his own Faith, and remain no more a part of that Body of which he was once a member, whether we suppose, that former Mystical Body to be still existent, or to have perished: which consideration of existing, or not existing of the Community from which one departs, is only material, and accidental to Schism consisting formally in division from the Communion of the Church, whether only preexistent, or existent also for the present. If it be said (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 (seeing light, and darkness cannot stand together) much more may we say, that morally one may be divided from a Church, and from himself, though that Church cease to be, or still remain; 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 himself. 113. And now appears, that, what Charity Maintained (Part 1. P: 204. N. 39) said (That a Protestant may be a Schismatic from himself, because the selfsame Protestant to day is convicted in Conscience, that his yesterday opinion was an error, with whom therefore a reconciliation according to Dr. Potter's Ground (Pag: 20.) is both impossible and damnable; is no strange saying in itself, though yet, to make it appear so, you (Pag: 303. N. 103.) do egregiously falsify his words, which are: From a man's self etc. (as much as is possible) which words (as much as is possible) you leave out. And by the way, I wonder with what conscience you can pretend to infer out of the words of Cha: Ma: That, they that hold errors, must hold them fast, and take special care of being convicted in conscience, that they are in error, for fear of being Schismatiks. For, Changed Ma: said only; with whom therefore a reconciliation according to Potter's grounds is impossible and damnable: which is a clear inference out of Potter, to show, that a man may be irreconciliable with himself, and divided from himself, in regard of his own repugnant opinions, and consequently a Schismatic from himself, if other conditions of Schism do concur, as for Example, that he leave 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 himself from himself. 114. Fourthly; Your speculation is directly against the holy Fathers. Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 153. N. 3.) citys S. Hierome upon these words (ad Titum 3. A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid) saying; Schism 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 alleges S. Austin de gest: cum Emerit: saying; Out of the Catholic Church one may have Faith, orders, and in sum, all things except salvation. This you will control, and tell S. Austin, that none can be out of the Catholic Church, because they themselves are Part of that Church, and they cannot be divided from themselves. And N. 11. the same Saint is alleged, saying (in Psalm: 30. Conc: 2.) The Prophets spoke more obscurely of Christ, than of the Church: because as I think, they did for see in spirit, that men were to make parties against the Church, and that they were not to have so great strife concerning Christ: Therefore that was more plainly foretold, and more openly prophesied, about which greater contentions were to rise, that it might turn to the condemnation of them, who have seen 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:) Believe this steadfastly without doubting, that every Heretic or Schismatic, baptised 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 Catholic Church, what alms soever he give, yea, though he should shed his blood for the Name of Christ, he cannot obtain salvation. But how can any be reconciled to the Catholic Church, if he cannot be divided from her, Because he neither was, nor could be divided from himself? 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 himself? We must therefore say, that, whosoever divides himself from the Church by Schism, 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, remains in Herself, 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 corporal death: unless you will covertly have men believe; that there can be no such imaginable thing, as Schism from the whole, or universal Church, because the party separating himself from the Church, is still a Part of Her, in regard he is not divided from himself. And no wonder, if you make small account of Schism, or Division from the Church, who think, and speak, so contemptibly of the Church, as we have heard you (Pag: 294. N. 93.) speak even of the Catholic Church, in these words: What is it but a society, of men, whereof every particular, and by consequence, the whole company is, or may be, guilty of many sins daily committed against knowledge and conscience? Now I would feign understand, why one error in faith, especially if not Fundamental, should not consist with the holiness of this Church, as well as many and great sins committed against knowledge and conscience? Which saying of yours hath been confuted above. 115. Object 11. Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 196. N. 31.) saith Luther being but only one, opposed himself to All, as well subjects as superiors. Against this, (Pag: 291. N. 89.) you object, How can we say properly and without straining, that he opposed himself to All, unless we could say also, that All opposed themselves to him? And how can we say so, seeing the world can witness, that so many thousands, nay millions, followed his standard as soon as it was advanced? 116. Answer. This is no good dealing to impugn Charity Maintained, for that very thing concerning Luther, for which, (Part. 1. Pag 161 N. 9) he cited Luther himself, expressly saying (in Praefat: Operum suorum;) Primò solus eram At the first, I was alone. Now will you say to your Patriarch; 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 haste, than they could make good speed; in a matter, so uncouth, strange incredible, of so high concerment, and so visibly repugnant to the doctrine, and practise of the whole universal Church of God; and therefore they must needs be liable to that just censure of Holy Scripture; He who soon believes, is light of heart; that is, they could have no Act of Divine supernatural faith, which requires the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost, and this cannot be given to produce, or foster, such fooleries, or imprudences. In the same manner, you take no notice of that which Cha: Ma: in the same Section citys out of Calvin (Ep. 141.) we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world; nor ask him how he could say so without straining; and how they made a separation from the whole world; nor how they could say so, seeing so many millions followed them. But I beseech you consider, that even Luther himself for his own opinions, and apostasy, proceeded by degrees, so far, as that he pretended to submit himself to the Pope. And then, how could so many follow him, at the first instant, when himself knew not what to follow? And at that time was he not alone; neither Catholic; nor settled in any other doctrine? And seeing in those doubts, and doctrines, some time must pass, before he himself was settled, or could instill them to others, it is manifest, that he opposed himself to All Churches then extant, and then we must by your own Rule say, that All opposed themselves to him, that is, they believed at that time those Articles, and embraced those rites, Liturgy, and public manner of worshipping God, which he condemned: which is true, even of those who afterward were seduced by him; and so it is most true, that in the beginning he opposed himself to All, and All opposed themselves to him, as appears by that which he further saith (Ep: ad Argentinenses Anno 1525.) Christum a nobis primò promulgatum audemus gloriari. We dare glory, that Christ was first diuulged by us. (Mark primo first) and Conrade: Schlusselburg, in Theolog: Calvinist: L. 2. saith; It is impudence to say, that many learned men in Germany before Luther, did hold the doctrine of the Gospel. The like say of others concerning Luther, may be seen in Ch: Ma: (P. 1. P. 267.) It is therefore true, that he opposed himself to All, and All to him. 117. Object 12. Charity Maintained (Part: 1. P. 202. N. 57) to prove it universally true, that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the visible Church of Christ, alleges S. Austin, saying (Ep: 48.) It is not possible that any may have 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 upon 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 united among themselves. Another to divide from them, who are divided among themselves, Now the Donatists separatet from the whole world of Christians, united in one Communion, professing the same Faith, serving God after the same manner, which was a very great Argument, that they could not have just cause to leave them: according to that of Tertullian, Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum, quod autem apud multos unum est, non est erratum, sed traditum. But Luther and his followers did not so. The world, I mean of Christians and Catholics, was divided and subdivided long before he divided from it; and by their divisions had much weakened their own Authority, and taken away from you this plea of S. Austin, which stands vpon no other foundation, but the unity of the whole world's Communion. 118. Answer. Ex ore tuo te judico. Your own Answer overthrows your own doctrine. Whosoever separates from the Communion of the whole world, in that wherein the whole world agrees, separates from the Communion of the world, because, to use your own words, this is to divide from them, who are united among themselves, and is not; to divide from them who are divided among themselves: But Luther divided himself from the whole world, in points, wherein the whole world was united; therefore he divided himself from the Communion of the whole world,. The Minor; that Luther divided himself from the whole world, in Points wherein the whole world was united, that is (as Protestant's falsely affirm) in errors and corruptions, common to the whole then visible Church, Charity Maintained (Pag:. P. 61. N. 9 and P. 167. N. 12.) hath proved out of learned Protestants, as also we have seen even now by the confession of Luther, Calvin, and Schlusselb: and the thing is clear of itself, 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; and this is the reason which you, and other Protestants yield in excuse of your leaving the Communion of all Churches: otherwise there could have been no pretence of a reformation. If, saith the Protestant, Gregorius Milius in Argumentâ Confession (Art: 7. de Ec:) There had been right believers which went before Luther in his office, there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation. Therefore the argument of ha': Ma, taken out of S. Austin, holds good and strong, no less against Luther, who separated from all Churches in Points wherein they were not divided, but united, than it was of force against the Donatists. Yea further, it proves, that those supposed errors, which Luther pretend to reform, were indeed Orthodox truths, even by the Rule which you allege out of Tertullian; variasse debuit error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unum est, non est erratum, sed traditum. Seeing then, All Churches before Luther agreed in those doctrines, which he undertook to reform, they cannot be errors, being the same, not only, apud multos, among many, as Tertullian speaks, but, apud omnes, among all Christian Churches in the world. And this reason taken out of Tertullian, grows stronger in our case, even by your saying, that, The world of Christians, and Catholics 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 unanimously in some Points, that very consent, amongst men, of so very different dispositions, affections, and opinions, is more than a very great Argument that Luther, and his followers, could not have just cause to leave them, as you argue against the Donatists. From whence it also follows, that you are in an error of pernicious consequence, while you say (that Christians and Catholics by than Divisions had much weakened their own authority, and taken away from us Catholics this plea of S. Austin, which stands upon no other foundation, but the unity of the whole world's Communion) seeing this unity yields a stronger argument in our present case, by the Divisions, and subdivisions, of which you talk, and therefore doth not takeaway, but strengthen our plea out of S. Austin. How familiar is it with you to overthrow yourself, and plead for your Adversary? 119. But this is not all. For, when S. Austin affirms against the Donatists; It is not possible, that any man may have just cause to separate their Communion, from the Communion of the whole world; he could not ground his Asseveration, upon any accidental unity in Communion, which might be altered, and which you say de facto is taken away, by Divisions, and subdivisions; but upon a higher, and more universal, and stable Ground, that God hath obliged himself, never to permit, 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. Austin's Argument had been of no force, and only a Petitio principii, as being grounded upon a Point, which was the thing in Controversy, between Catholics, and Donatists, that is, (whether the Church at that time was corrupted) and therefore S. Austin, and other Fathers, did rely upon an universal, and constant ground, as I also observed, when I spoke of succession of Bishops. And the words of S. Austin 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 accidental, and changeable thing, but he saith absolutely: It is not possible that any may have just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world; whereas according to your gloss, 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 infer demonstratively, that seeing it is not possible, that any may have 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 error, or corruption; and that Luther was a Schismatic, for leaving Her Communion, upon a pretence, so false, and injurious, to God and his Church. Morover, this your answer doth undoubtedly cross your own conscience. For you do not only believe, that there were many errors in the Church of S. Austires time, as the belief of the B. Trinity, the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father &c: but you also affirm again and again, that S. Austin himself, and the whole Church with him, held a great error, about the necessity of the Eucharist for children, wherein though you do perniciously err, and wrong that Holy Father; yet in your judgement, the Donatists could not be truly convinced of Schism, for leaving that Church, which you hold, to have been in an error against Faith, in a Point of very great moment: Or if the Donatists could not separate from the Church of that time, though corrupted, what excuse could Luther have, for his Division, from all Churches, of the whole world, upon pretence of errors? 120. And here, that the world may see with what spirit you began to swell, in leaving the Catholic Church, I cannot omit to reflect, how irreligously in this Page, and Section, you are bold with that great Doctor of God's Church, that Conqueror of Heretics, that Champion for God's Grace, that Cherubin for knowledge, and that Seraphin for most ardent love of God, glorious S. Austin. 121. Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Cap: 5.) having cited the forsayd saying of S. Austin, (Ep: 48.) It is not possible, that any may have just cause to separate their Communion, from the Communion of the whole world; adds this other sentence of the same Blessed Saint (the Bapt: Lib: 5. Cap: 1.) the most manifest sacrilege of Schism is eminent, when there was no cause of separation. To which say of S. Austin you give this answer (Pag: 301. N. 101.) The second of these sentences seems to me, to imply the contradiction of the first. For, to say, that the sacrilege of Schism is eminent, when there is no cause of separation, implies to my understanding, that there may be a cause of separation. Now in the first, he says plainly, that this is impossible. But by your leave, there is no such thing employed in the words of S. Austin, as your understanding, and will depraved, by pride, and Heresy, move you to apprehend: And to facilitate your apprehension, it made for your purpose to abbreviate, or rather falsify S. Austin's words, which are these, and are so cited by Charity Maintained, whom you had read: The most manifest sacrilege of Schism is eminent, when there was no cause of separation: As if he had said, in direct contrariety to your understanding, and false gloss; it is always true, that Schism 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. Austin, and of the Catholics of his time, by saying, the Donatists did not deny, but that the public service of God 〈◊〉 at that time unpolluted; whereas it is notorious, that they professed the whole Church, beside their particular congregation in Africa, to have perished, by reason that Catholics did communicate with some men, who, as they falsely said, were guilty of great crimes: and if they held the Church to have perished, how can you say, that they pretended no cause for their separation? Nay, how could they choose but allege for their excuse, a most convincing and necessary cause (if it had been true) the total ruin, and destruction, of the Church; with which therefore it was wholly impossible, for them to communicate? Neither can it be denied, but that they calumniated Catholics, for communicating with Caecilianus, whom they falsely 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 Catholics, that they erred, in believing that Baptism might be conferred by Heretics, and that they received, without competent penance, those who in time of persecution, had denied Christ, and, sayeth Potter (Pag: 125.) out of S. Austin (Epist: 167.) That the efficacy of Sacraments depends on the dignity of the Minister, that being no true Baptism, which is not given by a just man. 122. As for that which you say the Donatists objected against Catholics, that they set pictures upon their Altars (and you speak 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 falsehood and calumny, and therefore S. Austin, (Epist: 48.) saith, To how many did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter, (into the Catholic Church) who said, that we put, I know not what, upon the Altar? And in this. I say again, you cannot but speak against your own conscience, seeing you cite Optatus to prove your assertion, and yet he (L. 3.) expressly speaks of a falls report, venturos esse Paulum & Macharium (two Ambassadors sent into Africa by the pious Catholic Emperor Constans) qui interessent Sacrificio, ut cum Altaria solemniter aptarentur, proferreat ill● Imaginem: (of the Emperor) quam primò in altari ponerent▪ sic Sacrificium offerretur. Do you not know the Doctrine of all Catholics, that Sacrisice is due only to God? I beseech the Reader to read Baronius (Ann. 348. N. 33.34.) I wonder how you durst, at that time, when you wrote, and published your Book, writ, that setting pictures in Churches, and upon Altars, may yield just cause, to separate from a Church: at that time, I say, when pictures began to appear in English Protestant Churches, even in the universityes: and still I have fresh occasions of wondering that ever your Book could be approved. Do not Lutherans to this day, set up Images in their Churches? The wickleffists, and Hussites, and divers learned Protestants allow of Images; yea and some defend even the worshipping of them, as may be seen in the Triple Cord, (Chapt: 17. Sect: 4.) as also, learned Protestants confess, that divers Fathers defended the use and worship of Images; and that Xenaias was condemned, for being the first, that stirred up war against Images, which is witnessed by the Protestant Writer Functius. And Nicephorus (Hist: Eccles: Lib: 16. Cap: 27.) saith, Xenaias iste primus (o 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 fugitive 〈◊〉: and though he was not baptised, yet feigning himself a Christian, he crept into a Bishopric; 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. Austin himself (Lib: 1. de consensu Evangelistar: Cap: 10.) witnesseth, that in his time, in many places, Christ was to be seen 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 use of Images in Churches, be a sufficient cause of a Division from the Church, or no? If it be, than the Donatists might have reason to departed from the Church, seeing pictures were set up both in, and before S. Austin's time, and while (to use your own words) the whole world of Christians was united 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 us, the use of Pictures, and say, that S. Austin to avoid the objection of the Donatists (that Catholics set Pictures upon the Altar) answered only, by denying that to be true which they objected, as if they might have been excused from Schism, if indeed Pictures had been set upon the Altar? And must Protestants, depart from the Communion, of all those their Brethren, who at this day defend the lawfulness, and practise the setting up of Images in Churches? In the mean time, they who impugn the use and worsh ip of Images, may consider in Xenaias, what Progenitors they have. And here to show, how even by the light of natural reason, the respect, or irreverence which is done to the Image, redounds to the Prototypon, I cannot omit to set down the words of Nazarius (in panegir: Constantini) in detestation of the fact of Maxentius, in defacing and throwing down the Images of Constantine: Ecce enim (proh dolour! verba vix suppetunt) venerandarum Imaginum acerba dejectio, & divini vultus litura deformis. O manus impiae! o 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 mortal men, as Constantine was then, but of the Saviour of the world; his Blessed Mother; and Saints, now glorious in Heaven? O England, reflect, and repent! 123. But not in this place only, you are impudently bold with glorious S. Austin. For, (Pag: 259. N. 20.) you say; All that S. Austin saith is not true. And: I believe heat of disputation against the Donatists, and a desire to ●●er-confute them, transported him so far, is to urge 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 Schismatics, as the Donatists were, and to do it covertly and ex obliquo, when you are ashamed to unmask yourself, and proclaim it directly and openly. And this your desperate evasion declares sufficiently, that S. Austin was clearly with us, in that place which Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 164.) cited out of him: as also in that other place, which he cited (Pag: 165.) whereof you say in your same (Pag: 259. N. 20.) I cannot but wonder very much why he (S. Austin) should think it absurd for any man to say, There are sheep which he knows not, but God knows, and no less at you for obtruding this sentence upon us, as pertinent proof of the Church's Visibility. And (Pag: 119. N. 163.) you say; To S. Austin in heat of disputation against the Donatists, and ransacking all places for Arguments against them, we oppose S. Austin out of this heat, delivering the Doctrine of Christianity calmly and moderately: And (Pag: 168. N. 64.) S. Austin when he was out of the heat of disputation, confesses etc. If any ask, why Socinians are so averse from S. Austin; I answer; because in his works, he doth so often, so zealously, and so learnedly, defend the Uisibility, Perpetuity, Amplitude, Infallibility, and Authority of God's Church, and with Arguments, so direct against all our modern Heretics, and Socinians in particular, as it is impossible, one can be a friend to that holy Doctor of God's 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 own cause is not touched, are wont to prefer him before all other Ancient Fathers. 124. Object: 13. Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chap 3. N. 20. Pag: 107.) proves, That, seeing Protestants grant, that the Church cannot err in Points necessary to salvation, any wise man will infer, that it behoves all, who have care of their souls, not to forsake her in any one Point. First because though she were supposed to err, yet the error could not be Fundamental, nor destructive of Faith, and salvation. Neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring (if it were possible) with the universal Church. 2. Since she is, under pain of eternal damnation, to be believed in some things, wherein consessedly she is endued with infallibility; I cannot in wisdom suspect her credit in matters of less moment. 3. Since we are obliged, not to forsake the Church in Fundamental Points, and that there is no Rule to know precisely, what, and how many those Fundamental Points be, I cannot without hazard of my soul, leave her in any one Point; lest perhaps that Prove to be Fundamental, and necessary to salvation. 4. That Visible Church, even that Church, which confessedly cannot err in Points Fundamental, doth without distinction, propound all her desinitions concerning matters of Faith, to be believed under Anathemas, or Curses, holding it as a Point necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err: wherein if she speak true, then to deny any one Point in particular, which she defineth, or to affirm in general, that she may err, puts a man in state of damnation: whereas to believe her in such Points as are not necessary to salvation, cannot endanger our salvation; as likewise to remain in her communion, can bring no great harm, because she cannot maintain any damnable error, or practise; but to be divided from her (she being Christ's Catholic Church) is most certainly damnable. 5. The true Church, being in lawful, and certain 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, unless I know evidently, that the thing commanded, comes not within the compass of those things, to which her Power extendeth. And who can better inform me, how far God's Church can proceed, than God's Church herself? Or to what Doctor can the children, and Scholars 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 fearful examples of innumerable Persons, who forsaking the Church upon pretence of her errors, have failed, even in Fundamental Points, and suffered shipwreck of their salvation, aught to deter all Christians from opposing her in any Doctrine, or practise: As (to omit other both ancient and modern heresies) we see, that divers chief Protestants, pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church, are come to affirm, that for many Ages, she erred to death, and wholly perished; which Dr. Potter cannot deny to be a Fundamental error, against that Article of our Creed, I believe the Catholic Church, as he affirmeth it of the Donatists, because they confined the universal Church, within Africa, or some other small tract of soil; Lest therefore I may fall into some Fundamental error, it is most safe for me, to believe all the decrees of the Church, which cannot err Fundamentally; especially if we add; that, according to the Doctrine of Catholic Divines, One error in Faith, whether it be for the matter itself, great, or small, destroys Faith; and consequently to accuse the Church of any one error, is to affirm, 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 Maintained in the said (N. 20.) which I wish you had set down, as you found them; that the Reader might have judged, how much they ought to weigh, with every one, who hath a serious care to save his soul. Sure I am, they are grown stronger, by your Objections, as will appear to any indifferent Reader. 126. Your chiefest, and, as I may call it, Fundamental Answer; is, That I beg the Question, in supposing that any Church of one denomination is infallible in Fundamental Points, and that Protestants, when they say the Church is infallible in fundamental Points, understand only, That there shall be always a Church, to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it should err in Fundamentals. But I have showed heretofore, that you wrong even your pretended Brethren the Protestants, in fastening on them, so ridiculous an interpretation of the Church's infallibility in Fundamental Points; and therefore I must still insist upon that ground, in the sense which Protestants grant, and which I have proved to be true. Which truth being supposed, yourself are forced to favour us, so far, as to say (Pag: 163. N. 55.) We never annexed this Privilege (of not erring in Fundamentals) to any one Church of any one Denomination, as the Greek or the Roman Church: which if we had done, and set up some settled, certain Society of Christians, distinguishable from all others by adhering to such a Bishop for our guide in Fundamentals, than indeed, and then only, might you with some colour, though with no certainty have concluded, that we could not in wisdom, forsake this Church in any Point, for fear of forsaking it in a necessary Point. And in the next (N. 56.) you say; First we confess no such thing, that the Church of Rome was then this Church, (unerring in Fundamentals when Luther arose) but only a Part of it. Secondly, that if by adhering to the Church, we could have been thus far secured, this argument had some show of Reason. And (P: 150. N. 39) If the Church were an infallible director in Fundamental: then must we not only learn Fundamentals of her, but also learn of her, what is Fundamental, and take all for Fundamental, which she delivers to be such. In the performance whereof, 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 us Catholics members of that infallible Church! But in the mean time, you grant as much, as will serve, to overthrow all your own Arguments, in granting that if the Church be infallible in Fundamental Points, we have all reason not to forsake Her: And you give that very Reason which is alleged by Charity Maintained to wit, for fear of forsaking it in a necessary point; so that you make good both his Assertion, and reason thereof; and further you are ready to seal your Doctrine with your practice, by being quickly of that Church. Hear I beseech you remember your own words (Pag: 280. N. 95.) 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? And then; suppose such a Church should err in Points not Fundamental, what would you do? The same reason (of not erring in Fundamentals) for which you would quickly join yourself to her, would also oblige you nor to forsake her; and than you must find some Answer to all those Objections, which you make against the Reasons of Charity Maintained, alleged by him to prove, that if once I believe the Church to be infallible in Fundamentals, I cannot in wisdom forsake her in any Point, or part from her Communion. If you think it impossible, not to sorsake her Communion, in case she fall into Errors not fundamental, and yet believe that you must not forsake her, (which is a plain Contradiction) there remains only this true, and solid remedy, against such an inextricable perplexity; that you believe her to be infallible in all Points, be they Fundamental, or not Fundamental; which is a certain Truth, and follows from the very Principles of Protestants, (that the Church cannot err in Fundamentals) if they understand themselves, though you be loath to grant this so necessary a Truth. Yea my inference (that you must believe the Church to be infallible in all Points, even not Fundamental, if you believe her to be infallible in Fundamentals,) is your own Assertion (P. 148. N. 36.) Where you expressly grant, that, unless the Church were infallible in all things, we could not rationally believe her for her own sake, and upon her own word and Authority in any thing. For, an Authority subject to error, can be no firm or stable foundation of my belief in any thing: And if it were in any thing, than this Authority being one and the same in all proposals, I should have the same reason to believe all, that I have to believe one; and therefore must either do unreasonably, in believing any one thing upon the sole warrant of this Authority, or unreasonably, in not believing all things equally warranted. 127. You say, the Church of Rome was only a Part of the Church unerring in Fundamentals before Luther arose. But I would know, what other Church, could be such an unerring Church, except the Roman, and such as agreed with her against the Noveltyes which Luther began to preach. Certainly there was none such; and therefore since Protestants profess, that the universal Church is infallible, we must say, it was the Roman, together with such as were united in her Communion. This Ground being laid, and your main Objection being retorted against yourself, let us now examine in particular your other Objections. 128. You ask (Pag: 164. N. 56.) Had it not been a damnable sin, to profess errors, though the errors in themselves were not damnable? Then, (N. 57) You go about to prove, 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 Fundamentals, because, in reason, no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is be founded. And therefore if I consider what I do, and be persuaded, that your infallibility, is but limited, and particular, and partial, my adherence upon this ground, cannot possibly be Absolute and universal, and total. This you confirm with a Dialogue, which adds nothing to the reason, which now I have cited in your own words, save only, that it proves at large, that which we chief desired to be granted: That, if the Church be believed to be infallible in Fundamental Articles, as Protestants say she is, we must believe her to be infallible in all Points. In the end of this Dialogue you say, It may be very great imprudence, to err with the Church, if the Question be, whether we should err with the present Church, or hold true with God Almighty. 128. In the (N. 60.) You say; Particular Counsels have been liberal of their Anathemas, which yet were never conceived infallible. And (N. 61.) For, the visible Churches holding it a Point necessary to salvation, that we believe she cannot err, you know no such tenet, And (N. 62.) God (in Scripture) can better inform us, what are the Limits of the Church's Power, than the Church herself. And (N. 63.) That some forsaking the Church of Rome, have forsake Fundamental Truths, was not because they forsook the Church of Rome; for else all that have forsaken that Church, should have done so; which we (Protestants) say they have not; but because they went too far from her. It is true, (say you in the name of Protestants) if we said, there were no danger, in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madness to leave it. But we protest, and proclaim the contrary. And (N. 64.) You say; It was no error 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 error was, that they held de fact●, this was done when they had no just ground or reason to do so, and so upon a vain 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 himself from all other Communions from which they were divided: Which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawful to be required, and directly opposite to the Churche● Catholicism. You add morover, that, Charity Maintained neither had named those Protestants who held the Church to have perished for many Ages; neither hath proved, but only affirmed it to be a Fundamental error, to hold, that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world, and abolished for a time from the face of the earth. And (N. 65.) You say; To accuse the Church of some error in Faith, is not to say she lost all Faith: but he which is an Heretic, in one Article, may have true Faith of other Articles. These be your objections, which being divers, and of different natures, the Reader may not wonder, if I be somewhat long in answering them. Therefore, I 129. Answer: In this Question; (whether it be not wisdom, and necessary not to forsake the Church in any one Point, if she be supposed infallible in Fundamental Points;) we may either speak, 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 aught to infer upon some false, and impossible supposition (as this is, that the Church may err in Points not fundamental,) differently, from an inference, proceeding from a suppofition of a truth: or fourthly; what may or aught to be chosen, at least as minus malum, when there intervenes a joint, and inevitable, pressure of two, or more evils. This Advertisement premised. 130. I answer to your demand (whether it had not been a damnable sin to profess errors, though in themselves not damnable?) that a part rei, and per se loquendo, it is damnable to profess any least known error against Faith: and for that very cause, it is impossible the Church should fall into any error at all: But that I have proved already, that according to the Grounds and words of Protestants, it is not damnable to do so, if the error be nor opposite to some Fundamental Truth; and consequently, that they ought in all Reason, to adhere to the Church, acknowledged to be Infallible in Fundamental 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 Fundamental to the Faith of a Christian to believe whatsoever is sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God, as Dr. Potter grants, and the thingh itself is evidently true; than you must either affirm, that the Church did not err in any Point of Faith, or else 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 remained only in the part of Donatus, was an error in the matter and nature of it properly heretical. And much worse must it be, to say, she remained not where; and so while you pretend to fly the feigned errors of the Church, you fall into a formal and proper heresy. 131. If we consider what may be inferred, not absolutely, but upon some impossible supposition; That the Church errs in Points of Faith not Fundamental; we must infer, that she may be forsaken, because she errs in matters of Faith; and yet may not be forsaken, because as we have seen out of the Holy Fathers, it is never lawful to forsake the Church. What then is to be concluded, but that (as I have said heretofore) she cannot err, and therefore cannot be forsaken upon any terms? Divines teach, that at lest per se loquendo, non potest dari perplexitas, that is, there cannot happen a case wherein a man, whatsoever he doth, is sure to commit some sinful thing, (because it is a first principle in nature, that nothing is is more in our freedom, than to sin, or not to sin.) And yet this cause of perplexity must perpetually happen; if the Church could err, that is, one must judge that she were to be forsaken, and not to be forsaken, and so remain miserably perplexed. We must therefore, for avoiding this absurdity, conclude, that the Church cannot err 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 persuaded, the Church doth err, must he therefore forsake her communion, as Luther and his fellows did? In no case. For than we must call to mind, the Doctrine of Divines, in case of perplexity: that if one be in a vincible, or culpable error, for one of the contradictory parts, it is in his power, and he is obliged, to depose that error; 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 error to be invincible; for example, he believes the Church may not in any case be forsaken, and yet that she errs, and that he should sin, in pro-, fessing those supposed errors; 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 evil, and to follow the general Axiom, exduobus malis, minus est eligendum: as we see, nature exposes the arm to defend the head: And in dubijs pars tutior est eligenda. And therefore your saying (Pag: 283. N. 72.) We must not do evil to avoid evil, taken universally, and in all cases, is manifestly false, against the light of Reason; and your allegation of Scripture (Pag: 168. N. 63.) you must not do evil that good may come thereon, is not to the purpose. For, we speak not of attaining, a voluntary greater good, but of avoiding a greater evil, necessary to be committed, unless a lesser evil be embraced. This then being certain, that in case of perplexity, one is obliged to embrace the lesser evil, the Question may remain, 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. Certain it is, that he commits not so grievous a sin, as if he had betaken himself to the other part. But divers 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 avoid that which otherwise were a sin, and can be none in him, because every sin essentially requires freedom of will. He hath, say they, freedom to choose either of those two parts, taken as it were materially, or considered per modum naturae, but not formally, and morally, so to choose them, as to avoid sin absolutely, seeing he must of necessity choose one side; and therefore by embracing the lesser evil, he does as much, as lies in his power to do for avoiding sin, and consequently, is not culpable, or blameworthy. Now according to these Doctrines; whosoever leaves the Church upon pretence of errors not Fundamental, cannot be excused from Schism, because to profess such errors, had been either a less sin, than to leave the Church, and so, in the opinion of all Divines, he was obliged to embrace that less evil, and not leave the Church; or it had been no sin at all, in the opinion of divers good Divines, and then much less can he be excused for leaving the Church, without any necessity at all. Yea, seeing this last opinion is probable, he might prudently conform his conscience to it, and by that means free himself, from, not only sin, but also from danger thereof, by following a probable, and prudent dictamen, that to profess errors not Fundamental, were no sin at all, in that case, and upon 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 mind, and think in his conscience, that he sins by choosing the lesser evil, though not so grievously, as he had done by adhering to the other part. My reason is; because this latter opinion, is grounded upon the impossibility, which the perplexed person hath to avoid sin, and one cannot sin, in doing that, which he cannot avoid, though by an erroneous conscience he judge that he sins; as if one cannot hear Mass upon a holy day; or kills a man, with a weapon violently put into his hand, and with his hand by like violence carried to that fact: in those, or the like cases, no sin is committed, though the parties should think they sin; And this is true, though that part, or less ill which is embraced, be intrinsecè malum, evil of itself, or of its nature, (which is well to be observed, for our case, of professing known errors, which of itself is evil) 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 errors, rather than the desertion of the Church, is not only secure, but certain, and easy, and therefore necessary. Thus your main Objection is turned against yourself. And then it is further inferred; that if it either be no sin, or at least a less offence, to profess errors, than to forsake the Church; she may justly exact, and enjoin under Censures, that, to which every one is obliged by the Law of God, notwithstanding any pretence or supposition of errors. For, when the Holy Fathers, unanimously 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 error, which is most true, (and indeed they suppose it; otherwise there could be no difference between the universal, and a particular Church, which may fall into error, and so be forsaken) or else you must grant, that they did not conceive any eriours could excuse the leaving her Communion. And this vnanin●ous consent alone were sufficient for Christians to believe, that the profession of errors cannot be so great an evil, as separation from the Church, is. Nevertheless, reason itself, grounded in principles of Faith, convinceth the same. For, in true Divinity, it is Fundamental to the Faith of a Christian, not to disbelieve any one point, sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, as Potter expressly grants; and you say further, that it is to give God the : and therefore to profess, as a point of Faith, any thing contrary to the belief of the Church, is to say she erred fundamentally, and fell into infidelity, as Potter saith, every one doth who denies 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 heretical; and so, Whosoever saith the Church erred, he himself, by that very saying, professes indeed a damnable heresy, which is worse, than to profess an error contrary only to a Truth supposed to be not Fundamental, nor necessary: and so by your own confessions (though I grant your confessions contradict yourself) we prove our intent. 123. Besides, it is no less evident, that it is essentially and Fundamentally evil, to disbelieve a truth known 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 error repugnant to Divine Revelation. For, if it be not damnable to deny interiorly such a truth, much less can it be damnable to profess exteriorly only, a denial of that which one believes to be revealed by God. For, it is to be considered, that we speak not of any internal error, but only of the external profession of an error, not Fundamental, which alone is not so great a sin, as internal Heresy, nor so vast a Mischief, as the inconvenience of Schism is, which is destructive of the whole Church, essentially including communion in profession of one Faith, Liturgy etc. and necessarily brings with it a deluge of scandal, irreligiosity, contempt, disobedience, and in one word, universitatem malorum, and therefore S. Thomas teaches (2.2. Quest: 29. Art: 2. ad 3.) that amongst sins against our neighbour, Schism is the most grievous: because it is against the spiritual good of the multitude or community: and as Cha: Ma: saith (Part: 1. Pag: 156. N. 6.) As there is as great difference between the crime of rebellion, or sedition, and debates among private men, as there is inequality betwixt one man, and a whole kingdom, or Common wealth; so in the Church, Schism is as much more grievous than sedition in a Kingdom or Common wealth, as the spiritual good of souls surpasses the Civil and political weal. See here the say of the Holy Fathers in Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 157. N. 70.) of the grievousness of Schism. All which is confirmed by what we said even now, that the profession of an error, in our case, cannot so much as hurt a private person, who constituted in an invincible perplexity, doth not sin by embracing the less evil, in the opinion of great Divines, with whose Doctrine whosoever conforms his Conscience, is certain not to sin, whatsoever the thing be in itself. 134. Morover, it is evident both in reason, and by experience, that Schism always brings with it, that very thing which you pretend to be so very inconvenient, and damnable, that is, a profession of errors, at least not Fundamental, by multiplying diversity of Sects, and opinions, as we see it happens among Protestants, some of who● must be in an error. And S. Hierome saith truly upon those words of the Apostle (which some casting of, have suffered ship wrack in their Faith) though Schism in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from heresy, yet there is no Schism which doth not feign some Heresy to itself, that so it may seem to have departed from the Church upon good reason. And is it not worse, both to believe and profess culpable errors, than to believe aright, and fail only in the outward profession of that belief? The former makes one a formal complete Heretic, both in conscience, and judgement of the Church: the latter is indeed no Heretic, but only appears so to be, neither is he subject to the punishment of Heretics. The former offends in two respects; in the belief of an error, and profession of it. The latter, only in profession, which alone, as I said, cannot be so sinful as the error of Heresy itself; both because the profession is sinful, only by reason of the error professed; as also, because by heresy one doubts, or denies some truth revealed by God, which is immediately against God's supreme Uerity and veracity, and so is against an Object of a Theological Virtue; 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 known error, is only against the precept of professing one's Faith, which are distinct things; and therefore, as I said, a culpable error is worse, than the only profession of an error. If you think, that such an external profession, is worse than an internal error, because that is against ones conscience; you are much mistaken; it being certain, that not every sin of dissimulation, against ones conscience, is greater than any other sin; as is clear of itself, to every Divine, or Philosopher: yea the external sinful profession of an error, flows from the Heresy itself, which ordinarily is a worse root, than humane fear, hope, or the like, from which an external false profession, or dissimulation, is wont to proceed, and therefore this is less damnable, than that, even though it were a fin, and were not excused by the supposed invincible perplexity, as we have showed it may be. S. Thomas (2.2. Quest: 39 Art: 2. in corpore) teaches, that Infidelity ex suo genere is a greater sin than Schism, yet adds this exception, It may happen that some Schismatic may commit a greater sin, than some infidel: either by reason of greater contempt, or the greater danger which he brings, or for some like thing. If this Angelical Doctor S. Thomas say this, comparing Schism with true infidelity, much more may we affirm it, if we consider true Schism on the one side, and on the other, only a false appearance, or mere external profession of error, or heresy. As for those limitations of S. Thomas, they may seem to be prophecies, if we apply them to Luther and his fellows, in regard of the contempt, which they shown of all Prelates, and the whole Church; of the, not only danger, but real, and unspeakable mischiefs, which their Schism did bring; and of moreand greater inconveniences, than could have been believed or imagined, if the world did not see, and lament them. So as we may well speak to them in the words of Ch: Ma (P. 1. P. 187. N. 23.) What excuse can you feign to yourselves, who for Points not necessary to salvation, have been occasions, causes, and authors of so many mischiefs, as could not but avoidable accompany so huge a breach, in Kingdoms, in Commonwealths, in private persons, in public Magistrates, in Body, in soul, in goods, in life, in Church, in the state, by Schisms, by war, by famine, by plague, by blood shed, by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the Earth, wherein, as in a map of Desolation, the heaviness of your crime appears, under which the world doth pant? 135. Some learned Divines speaking of invincible Perplexity, give this Doctrine; that, if I must either commit a venial sin (in a matter which of itself, and per se loquendo, is only venial, for example, an officiously) or expose myself to danger of a mortal sin, I am obliged to choose the lesser evil (which in opinion of great Divines, were in that case no sin at all) rather than put myself in danger of the greater evil, a deadly sin. O into how certain danger, doth a Schismatic precipitate himself, (beside the sin of Schism) of committing innumerable deadly sins, and of being cause, that innumerable other persons fall into the like offences, against God, and his neighbour! And therefore men are obliged, rather to undergo a less evil, than to make themselves, obnoxious, to infinitely greater mischiefs, and rather to profess exteriorly an error, not destructive of salvation, than to forsake the Communion of God's Church, within which, God hath confined Remission of sins, and Salvation. Consider what we have cited out of your own words (Pag: 163. N. 56.) If by adhering to the Church, we could have been thus far secured, (not to err in Fundamentals) this Argument (that in wisdom we must forsake the Church in nothing, lest we should forsake her in some thing necessary) had some show of reason; and what you say (N. 55.) We never annexed this Privilege (of not erring in Fundamentals) to any one Church of any one denomination: Which if we had done, and set up some settled certain society of Christians for our Guide in Fundamentals, than indeed, and then only, might you with some colour, though with no certainty, have concluded, that we could not in wisdom, forsake this Church in any Point, for fear of forsaking it in a necessary Point. In these words you grant, that if any Church of one denomination, were known to be infallible in all Fundamental Points, we might conclude, though not certainly, yet probably, that you could not in wisdom forsake her in any Point, for fear of forsaking her in a necessary Point. If the inference of Charity Maintained be probable by your confession (upon that supposition of infallibility in some determinate Church, for Fundamental Points) than you must grant, that all objections to the contrary may be answered, which I pray you do; and tell us whether in that case it should be damnable to profess any known error? If it be damnable; than you must forsake the Church in such Points; which yet you say, in wisdom one could not do: If it should not be damnable; you must show how it was not so: and whatsoever you allege for the defence of professing known errors, and adhering to the Church, even in that case, will serve for defence of us, and a confutation of your own objections against us. Besides you say, Charity Maintained might have some colour and reason in the case proposed (of some determinate Church's infallibility in Fundamentals) to conclude, that we could not in wisdom forsake such a Church in any Point, for, fear of forsaking her in a necessary Point. From which confession I infer; first that if in wisdom one ought not forsake in any Point a Church infallible in fundamentals, for fear of forsaking her in a necessary Point, much more they ought to conform themselves to her in external profesion; and consequently, that it is a greater evil to forsake her communion, than to profess externally some unfundamentall error; and, Secondly that for fear of incurring a greater evil, that is (in our case) a Fundamental error, one may and aught to choose the less; which is the thing I have endeavoured to prove, and which utterly evacuates the ground for which you pretend to excuse Luther, and his followets. Morover; If you mean, that one is not to profess any error against his Conscience, but that also he ought his submit to judgement in all Points to a Church lieved to be infallible in Fundamentals, than you overthrew your own 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 Fundamentals; because in reason, no Conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded. And therefore if I consider what I do, and be persuaded, that your Infallibility is but limited, and particular, and partial, my adherence upon this ground, cannot possible be Absolute, and universal, and Totall. Thirdly; upon this your own grant, it follows clearly, that Luther could not in wisdom forsake all Churches, because Protestants grant that all Churches, or the whole Church, cannot err in Fundamental Points, and therefore in wisdom could not be forsaken in any thing at all; not that your first Protestant's can be excused from Schism in doing so. But again, if they were obliged to submit their judgement to the Church, and had done so (as indeed they ought to have done) their professing a Faith contrary to that of the Church, as Luther did had been also to profess an error contrary to their own conscience: and so whatsoever you say, you are confuted by your own grounds which appears more by these your express words (Pag: 280. N. 95.) What man of judgement will think it any disparagement to his judgement to prefer a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thorns? And therefore though Protestants have some Errors, yet seeing they are not so great as yours; he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement to change your Communion for theirs, though confessed to have some corruptions, it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgement. Do not these words declare your opinion, that in case of perplexity, when of two Evils one must be chosen, it is judgement, and consequently no sin, to make choice of the less? This is the very thing which I have alleged out of Divines, and which obliges you to answer your own argument against Charity maintained. This your chiefest objection being answered, confuted, and retorted, let us 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 Fundamental, it be an evident consequence, that we can never believe the Church in some things, unless, we believe her in all, and so your objection is of no force; yet Charity Maintained never said, 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 Logic, had been like to this Argument: Man's understanding is infallible in some things, for example, in the most universal known principles, as, that two contradictoryes cannot be true: or that every whole is greater than a part thereof, and the like: Therefore I am to believe, man's understanding to be infallible in all things. But he spoke morally, and pro subjectâ materia, and therefore said expressly; seeing Protestant's grant the Church to be infallible in Points necessary to salvation, any wise man will infer, that it behoves all, who have care of their souls, not to forsake her. Where you see; he speaks of what were to be done in wisedowne, and for the safety of ones soul, and considers tkings (as in this subject they ought to be considered) in a moral, not in a Logical; or Metaphysical way, That the Church being confessedly infallible, in all necessary Points, men must consider well, how they leave her in any point, lest perhaps, either that point wherein they forsake her, be a Fundamental point, or else lest they may fall into some Fundamental error, after they have left her; as also, that seeing they rely on her Authority in Fundamental Articles, it is no wisdom to suspect her credit in matters of less moment; especially considering the many examples of those, who de facto forsaking the Church, have fallen into damnable, and Fundamental heresies: and in a word; seeing 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 err in Points necessary to salvation, there may be great harm in leaving, but no hurt in fellowing Her, in all that she proposes, as matter of Faith: which is your own grant, as we have seen above, in these words (Pag: 168. N. 63.) It is true if we said, there were no danger in being of the Roman Church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madness to persuade any man to leave it. Now that the Roman Church doth not err in Fundamental or necessary Points, I will prove hereafter out of your own words, out of Potter, and other Protestants; and therefore it was madness to persuade men to leave Her. 138. These, and the like moral, and prudential Arguments, Charity Maintained urged: which truly in a matter concerning Eternity, aught to move every one; and more, than mere Metaphysical speculations. And that this discourse of Charity Maintained was very reasonable, yourself make good in your words which I have cited, that if there were set up some settled society of Christians, for our guide in Fundamentals, then, Charity Maintained might with some colour, and show of reason, have concluded, that we could not in wisdom forsake this Church in any Point for fear of forsaking Her in a necessary Point. What Mr. Chillingworth? For fear of forsaking Her in a necessary Point? What colour of reason can there be in this your fear? we have heard you tell us (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 vain Dialogue in this same section, whereby with great pomp of words, you endeavour to prove, that it is impossible to adhere to the Roman Church in all thingr, having no other ground & c? Is it not clear, that you contradict yourself, and are engaged to answer all the Arguments, which you object against Charity Maintained for saying, that if the Church be infallible in Fundamentals, it is no wisdom to leave her in any Point? Can one judge, that there is reason for that which the same man is confident (which is your own word Pag: 165. N. 57) may be demonstrated to be false? And by this appears, that your whole discourse (N. 63.) is against this your own grant. Neither do we say, that universally, one must stick to one side, for fear of going too far towards the other; but that, when there is no harm, in embracing one part, and evident danger in forsaking it, in such a case, we cannot forsake one part, and go to the other; that is we cannot forsake the Church in Points, not necessary for salvation: because we may chance to leave her in some Fundamental Point; which even yourself grant to be a rational deduction, if once it be supposed, that any particular Church is infallible in Fundamental Points, as Protestants commonly grant, the universal Church to be infallible in such Articles: and therefore, as I said above, Luther and his fellows could not in wisdom forsake the universal Church in any one Point. Morover remember what you writ (Pag: 277. N. 61.) in these words: Neither is there any reason, why a Church should please herself too much, for retaining fundamental truths, while she remains regardless of others. For, who is there that can put her in sufficient caution, that these errors about profitable matters, may not according to the usual fecundity of error, bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine by secret consequences, the very foundations of Religion and Piety? If this be true of the universal Church, which is infallible for Fundamentals: much more may we say of any private person (who hath no such privilege of infallibility) forsaking the Church in some Point of Faith; Who is there can put him in sufficient caution, that these Errors about profitable matters, may not according to the usual fecundity of Error, bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine by secret consequences, the very fundations of Religion and Piety? And therefore Charity Maintained had reason to say, that the Church ought not to be forsaken in any least Point, lest perhaps that prove to be Fundamental. Neither can you say, that Protestants were certain, that the Points wherein they left the Church, were errors. For, to omit the reasons which I have already given here, I must put you in mind, that divers learned chief Protestants agree with us in very many, yea, I may say, in all the main differences, betwixt Protestants and us: And therefore your presence of so great evidence, and certainty against the Doctrine of the Roman Church, is merely voluntary and verbal. And besides, I would know, how the Church can be supposed to be infallible in fundamental Points, and yet may be in danger to fall into such errors as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine the very Fundations of Religion and Piety? 139. These main dissicultyes being taken away, your other Objections, cited above, are answered, by only mentioning them. The Question is not, whether we should err 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 understood, and declared to us by God's universal true Church, or by any private person or particulat Sect. 140. If particular Churches have been liberal of their Anathemas, which yet were never conceived infallible: What is that to the Anathemas, of the universal Church granted to be infallible in fundamentall points, in which whosoever disobeyes her, puts himself in state of damnation. And seeing you confess, that men cannot know what points be fundamental, it follows, that we cannot with safety disobey her in any one point, for fear of leaving her in some fundamental Article. 141. That the visible Church of Christ holds itself to be infallible, cannot be doubted; seeing even her enemies believe she cannot err in fund mental Points, and she proposes all her definitions of faith to be believed, without distinguishing between Points fundamental, and not Fundamental: which she could not do without great temerity, and injury to Faithful people, if she did not hold herself to be universally infallible. Of which point Ch: Ma (P. 2. Ch: 5. N. 20. P. 132.) speaks at large, in answer to a demand or objection of Potter: and in vain you say; God (in Scripture) can better inform us what are the limits of the Church's Power than the Church herself. For, the Question is only whether God will have his meaning in Scripture, declared by the Church, or by every man's private spirit, wit, or fancy. Besides, God declares his sacred pleasure, not only by the written, but also by the unwritten word. 142. That there is no danger in being of the Roman Church, Protestants must affirm, who hold, that she had all things necessary to salvation, as shall appear hereafter: and whosoever denies it, must grant that Christ had no Church upon Earth, when Luther appeared: and that there is danger to leave her, experience makes manifest, by the infinite multitude of different Sects, and opinions, whereof all cannot be true and so must be esteemed a deluge of heresies. 143. The Heresy of the Donatists, did consist formally, in this; that the Church might err or be polluted, and by that Means give just cause to forsake her communion. For, if without any such error in their understanding, they did only de facto separate by the obstancy of their will, they were indeed Schismatics, but not Heretics, as not dividing themselves from the Church in Matter of Faith: And yet Potter sayeth they were properly Heretics. Yea if it be not an Heresy to say in general, that the Church may err, 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 said, it be once granted, that she may err: For example; the Donatists gave out, that the Catholic Church was defiled, 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 Catholics did communicate with those traditours. Since therefore it is supposed by you, and affirmed by Potter, that the Donatists were heretics, their heresy must consist in this; that the Catholic Church spread over the whole world, might err, and be polluted. And is not this the very heresy of Protestants?) And do they not pretend, to leave the Church, upon 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 seen in Charity Maintained (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 Maintained had not named those Protestants who hold the Church to have perished for many Ages. That it is a fundamental error, of its own nature properly heretical to say, The Church Militant may possibly be driven out of the world, is the Doctrine of Potter, as we have seen; as also, that Whitaker calls it a profane heresy; and more Protestants may be seen to that purpose in that place where we cited Whitaker: And Dr. Lawd holds it to be against the Article of our Creed, I believe the Holy Catholic Church; and that to say, that Article is not true, is blasphemy. 144. That he which is an Hererike in one Article, may have true Faith in other Articles, is against the true and common Doctrine of all Catolique Divines, and universally against all Catholics, to say, That such a Faith can be sufficient to salvation; because his very heresy is a deadly sin; And therefore to say, the Church can err, in any one point of Faith, is to say, the whole Church may be in state of damnation for faith; which is an intolerable injury to God, and his spouse the Church. For, if she may be in state of damnation, by any culpable error, she must be supposed to want some thing necessary to salvation; namely, the belief of that truth which such culpable error denies. But more of this hereafter. 145. By the way. How can you say (N. 56.) to Charity Maintained; That, when it was for his purpose to have 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 Maintained 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 thereby proves (N. 30.) that Protestants want true Faith? 146. Object 14. Charity Ma●ntayned in divers occasions, affirms, or supposes that Dr. Potter, and other Protestants teach, that the Roman Church doth not err in any Point Fundamental, or necessary to salvation: and this you say divers times, is not true. 147. Answer. I will not say, as you (Pag. 76. N. 63.) speak to Charity Maintained: I fear you will repent the time, that ever you urged this Point against Charity Maintained; but contrarily, I hope, that the Reader, if he be not a Protestant, will find just occasion to praise God that the Answer to this your Objection, will demonstrate to him in how safe a way we Catholics are, even by the confession of our Adversaries; and how much it imports him, to place his soul in the like safety. 148. I have already, upon several occasions, mentioned some passages, wherein you and Dr. Potter confess that the Roman Church, wants nothing necessary to salvation. Now I will do it more at large. Potter (Pag: 63.) saith; The most necessary and fundamental Truths, which constitute a Church are on both sides unquestioned: And for that reason, learned Protestants yield them (Romanisis, as he calls us) the name and substance of a Christian Church. Where we see, that he saith in general learned Protestants yield them etc. In proof whereof, he citys in his margin, Junius, D. Reinolds, and says, 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 have many other, even of our greatest Adversaries. And I desire the reader to observe well, that here (P: 62) he saith; To those twelve Articles which the Apostles in their Creed, esteemed a sufficient Summary of wholesome Doctrine, they (Catholics) have added many more. Such are, for instance, their Apocryphal Scriptures, and vnwr●ten dogmatic Traditions, their Transubstantiation, and dry Communion, their Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, Latin service, traffic of Indulgences; and shortly, the other new Doctrines and Decrees canonised in their late Synod of Trent. Upon these and the like new Articles, is all the contestation between the Romanists and Protestants. And then he adds the words which we have cited; The most necessary and Fundamental truths which constatute a Church, are on both sides unquestioned; and for that etc. Where we see he grants, we believe the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed, which he teaches at large, to contain all Fundamental Points of Faith; and that we hold all the most necessary and Fundamental truths which constitute a Church. Therefore, those Points of our Doctrine which he gives for instance, are no Fundementall errors, nor the contrary Articles, necessary and Fundamental truths: and yet he names all the Chiefest Points controverted between us: and Protestants; even transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, and Latin Service, which are the things they are wont most to oppose; yea he comprises all the Doctrines and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Therefore we are free from fundamental errors, by the confession of our Adversaries. (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 cleansed it from corrupt, and impure qualities. If the Protestants erected not a new Church, then ours is still the Old Church; and if it were only cleansed from corrupt qualities, 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 believe on their part, and wherein they judge the life and substance of Religion to be comprised, are most, if not all of them, so evidently and indisputably true, that their Adversaries themselves do avow and receive them as well as they. Therefore we Catolikes have the life and substance of Religion. (Pag: 60.) In the prime grounds of Principles or Christian Religion we have not forsaken the Church of Rome. Therefore you grant that we have the prime grounds, or Fundamental Articles of Religion. (Pag: 11.) For those Catholic Verityes which she (the Roman Church) retains, we yield her a member of the Catholic, though one of the most unsound and corrupt members. In this sense, the Romanists may be called Catholics. Behold, we are members of the Catholic Church, which could not be, if we erred in any one fundamental Point. By the way: If the Romanists may be called Catholics, why may not the Roman Church be termed Catholic? And yet this is that Argument, which Protestants are wont to urge against us; and Potter in particular, in this very place, not considering that he impugns himself, while he speaks against us, nor distinguishing between universal, as Logicians speak of it, (which signify, one common thing, abstracting, or abstracted, from all particulars) and Catholic, as it is taken in true Divinity, for the Church spread over the whole world, that is, all Churches which agree with the Roman, and upon that vain conceit, telling his unlearned Reader, that universal and particular, are terms repugnant, and consequently one cannot be affirmed of the other; that is, say I; Catholic cannot be affirmed of Dr. Potter, nor Dr. Potter said to be a Catholic, because a particular cannot be said to be universal, or an universal. (Pag: 75.) To departed from the Church of Romen, in some doctrines and practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation. (P: 70.) They (the Roman Doctors) confess that setting aside all matters controverted, the main positive truths wherein all agree, are abundantly sufficient to every good Christian, both for his knowledge, and for his practice, teaching him what to believe, and how to live, so as he may be saved. His saying, that the Roman Doctors confess, that setting a side all matters controverted etc. is very untrue: it being manifest, that Catholics believe, Protestants to err damnably, both in matters of Faith, and practise; yet his words convince ad hominem, that we have all that is necessary, yea and abundantly sufficient, both for knowledge, and practise for us to be saved. And then he discoursing of the Doctrines wherein 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 remains, little difference of importance between us. Therefore de facto we believe all things of importance which Protestants believe. After these words, without any interruption he goes forward, and says (Pag: 75.) But by this discourse, the Mistaker happily may believe his cause to be advantaged, and may reply. If Rome want nothing essential to Religion, or to a Church, how then can the Reformers justify their separation from that Church, or free themselves from damnable Schism? Doth not this discourse prove, and the Objection, which he raises from it, suppose, that we want nothing essential to Religion? Otherwise, this Objection which he makes to himself, were clearly impertinent, and foolish, if he could have dispatched all, by saying, we err in essential points, which had been an evident, and more than a just cause, to justify their separation: which yet appears further by his Answer to the said Objection; That to departed from a particular Church, and namely from the Church of Rome, in some Doctrines and practices, there might be just and necessary cause, though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary 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, whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a member, though corrupted. And this clears us from the imputation of Schism, 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 err in any one Fundamental point, by that very error she would cease to be a member of the Body of Christ, and should be cut of from the hope of salvation; therefore she doth not err in any Fundamental Point (P. 83.) we were never disjoined from her (the Church of Rome) in those main essential truths, which give her the name and essence of a Church. You must then say, that she errs not in any Fundamental Point. For, the essence of a Church, cannot consist with any such error. And that it may appear, how desirous he is that it should be believed, catholics and Protestants not to differ in the essence of Religion, he adds these words immediately after those which we have last cited: whereof if the Mistaker doubt, he may be better informed by some late Roman Catholic Writers. One of France, who hath purposely in a large Treatise proved (as be believes) the Hugonots and Catholics of that Kingdom to be all of the same Church, and Religion, because of the truths agreed upon by both: And another of our Country (as it is said) who hath lately published a large Catalogue of learned Authors, both Papists and Protestants, who are all of the same mind. Thus you see, he ransacks all kind of proofs, to show that Catholics and Protestants differ not in the substance, and essence of Faith, and to that end citys for Catholic Writers, those two who can be no Catholics, as Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chap: 3. Pag: 104.) shows the former in particular to be a plain Heretic, or rather Atheist, Lucian-like, jesting at all Religion. (Pag: 78.) he saith; we hope and think very well of all those Holy and devout souls, which in former Ages lived and died in the Church of Rome. Nay, our Charity reaches further to all those at this day, who in simplicity of heart believe the Roman Religion and profess it. To these words of the Doctor, if we subsume; But it were impossble, that any can be saved, even by Ignorance, or any simplicity of heart, if he err in a Fundamental point (because as by every such error, a Church ceases to be a Church, so every particular person ceases to be a member of the true Churches) the Conclusion will be, that we do not err in any Fundamental point. Nay (Pag: 79.) he saith further, we believe it (the Roman Religion) safe, that is, by God's great Mercy, not damnable to some, such as believe what they profess: But we believe it not safe, but very dangerous, if not certainly damnable to such as profess it when they believe (or if their hearts were upright, and not perversely obstinate, might believe) the contrary. Behold we are not only in a possibility to be saved; we are even safe, upon condition, we believe that Faith to be true which we profess, and for which we have suffered so long, so great, and so many losses, in all kinds; which if we did undergo, for extetnall profession of that Faith, which we do not inwardly believe to betrue, we should deserve rather to be begged for fools, than persecuted for our Religion. In the mean time, every Catholic 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 return to say; it were impossible for any Roman Catholic to be safe, upon what condition soever, if we err in any one Fundamental Article of Faith. Here I must briefly note, that whereas Dr. Potter in the words now alleged, saith; It is not damnable to some, and then to declare who those some are, adds, such as believe what they profess; Chillingworth (Pag: 404. N. 29.) leaves out the distinction, or comma, placed between some and such, and puts it after damnable. Thus: Not damnable, to some such as believe what they profess; which words may signify, that it is not safe to all such as believe what they profess, which may much alter the sense of Potter's words, as the Reader will perceive by comparing them. 149. Now Sir, who will not wonder, at your so often declaiming against Charity Maintained, for saying; Dr: Potter taught, that the Roman Church doth not err in Fundamental Points? But what if yourself say the same? It is clear you do so. For, whereas Charity Maintained (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 error destroys the nature and being of a Church, and so our Saviour Christ should have had no visible Church on Earth: To these words (which you thought fit to set down very imperfectly) you answer (Pag: 16 N. 20.) In this manner: I say, in our sense of the word Fundamental, it does follow. For, if it be true, that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman, than it must be, either because there was no Church at all, which we deny; or because the Roman Church was the whole Church, which we also deny: Or because she was a part of the whole, which we grant. And if she were a true Part of the Church, than she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and held no errors which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. For, this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholic. In our sense therefore of the word Fuudamentall, I hope she erred not Fundamentally: But in your sense of the word, I fear she did. That is, she held some thing to be Divine Revelation, which was not; some thing not to be, which was. You have spoken so clearly and fully in favour of the Roman Church, and not only affirmed, but proved that she did not err in any Fundamental Point, that I need not say one word to ponder your words, or declare the force of them. (Pag: 7. N. 3.) You expressly approve the saying of Dr. 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. Therefore, do we infer, Catholics believe all that is necessary to salvation, and more. But we can never yield so much to you. (Pag. 85. N. 89.) You confess the Roman Church to be a Part of the Catholic Church; And we have heard you say (Pag: 16. N. 20.) If she were a true Part of the Church, than she retained those truths which were simply necessary to salvation, and beld no errors which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it. For, this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church, a member of the Church Catholic. This you say, and make good the like inference, which I made by occasion of Dr. Potter's words, that the Roman Church is a member of the Catholic; 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) retains, and the practice of them, may prove an Antiaote to her against the errors which she maintains in such persons as in simplicity of hart follow this Absalon. These Points of Christianity, which have in them the nature of Antidotes against the poison of all sins and errors, the Church of Rome, though otherwise much corrupted, still retains; therefore we hope she erreh not Fundamentally, but still remains a Part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in all things: Seeing the very same Scripture which puts us in hope she errs not Fundamentally, (mark how you profess to learn, even out of Scripture, that we err not Fundamentally) assures us, that in many things, and those of great moment, she errs very grievously. And these errors though to them that believe them, we hope they will not be pernicious, yet the professing of them against conscience, could not but bring to us certain damnation. Therefore, the Points in which we differ from Protestants, being acknowledged not to be Fundamental, and in other Points professing nothing against our conscience, we are safe by your own Confession. If we did not believe as we profess, we were no Roman Catholics. In the same place you say expressly, De facto we hope the Roman Church does not err in Fundamentals; yea you say, (Lin: 33.) Perhaps she does not err damnably, the contrary whereof you affirm so often. You example of Absalon, was very ill applied to the Roman Church, which did not rebel from you, but you against the whole Church (the Mother of all Christians) more sacrilegiously, than Absalon behaved himself wickedly to wards his father. (Pag: 404. N. 29.) you approve Dr. Potter's saying (Pag: 79.) which I cited above that the Roman Religion is safe, that is, not damnable to some, such as believe what they profess. And in the same place you say we may hope that she retains those Truths which are simply, absolutely and indispensably necessary to salvation. (Pag: 401. N. 27) We approve those Fundamental and simply necessary Truths which you retain, by which, some good souls among you may be saved, but abhor your many superstitions and heresies. The Truths you retain, are good, and, as we hope, sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you, to salvation, yet are not to be sought for in the conventi le of Papists. If any soul may be saved in our Religion; it is clear that we hold not any Fundamental error, with which no soul can be saved. (Pag: 277. N. 61.) you say: The simple defect of some Truth's profitable only, and not simply necessary, may consist with salvation. Seeing therefore you have so often confessed, that we err not in Fundamental Points, our errors in some Truth's profitable only, and not fundamental, may consist with salvation. How then do you say to Catholics, (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 do 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 disbelieved. Now you know well, that in Points of greatest moment, which Catholics believe against some Protestants, other Protestants stand for us, against their pretended Brethren: and therefore you must either say that we believe all such Doctrines as are absolutely necessary to salvation, or that many learned Protestants do not believe all such Doctrines, and consequently are not capable of Salvation. (Pag: (Pag: 269. N. 45.) A man may possibly leave some opinion or practice of a Church formerly common to himself and others, and continue still a member of that Church: Provided that what he forsakes, be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church consists. For this cause you say, that although Protestants left the external Communion of the Church, yet they left not the Church, because they left her not in any thing essential to a Church, as Fundamental Points are: Therefore you suppose, the Church before Luther, did not err in any Fundamental Article: Otherwise you had left her, that is, you had disagreed from her in a Fundamental 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 essential, and Fundamental 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 external Communion of your Church you are mistaken: For, it was not so much because she, your Church, as because your Churches external Communion was corrupted, and needed Reformation. But if we erred in Fundamental Points, Protestants must have forsaken us chief for that reason, that our Church was corrupted with Fundamental errors of Faith. Therefore 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 us from the imputation of Schism. (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 believe much more, than is simply necessary to salvation. But, as I said above, we will not, because we cannot, yield so much to you. And here I must ask again; 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? you say, that By the confession of both sides we agree in much more than is simply and indispensably necessary to salvation. If we believe much more than is necessary to salvation, by what Logic will you deduce, that we believe not as much as is necessary? 150. These so many and so clear words of Dr. Potter, and yourself; 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 errors are confessed not to be Fundamental, it is an affected mistake as I have often told you. And (Pag: 308. 108.) As for your obtruding upon us, that we believe the Points of difference not Fundamental or necessary, you have been often told it is a calumny. The oftener the worse, it being a saying void of all truth, and a shameful calumny in you. 151. To these testimonies of Potter and Chillingworth, many other might be allelged, out of other Protestants, as we have seen divers other alleged by Potter. Dr. Lawd (Pag: 299) saith: I do acknowledge 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 believe the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ himself. Behold, not only a possibility of salvation, but also the reason thereof, because we believe the Creed &c: which is the very reason for which Protestants hold, that they themselves 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 approve, though in true Divinity it be of no force at all; for, though one believe the Creed, and hold the foundation Christ himself, 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 therefore do in this, as in many other things, speak inconsequently, and contradict themselves. (Pag: 376.) he saith: The Religion of the Protestants, and the Romanists Religion, is the same: nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants, set up a different Religion (for the Christian Religion is the same to both) but they differ in the same Religion. Therefore, say I we hold no Fundamental errors, wherein whosoever differ, cannot be of the same, but must be of a different Religion. And (Pag. 129.) The Protestants have 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 think cannot be denied; and in proof hereof, (P: 281.) he alleges Luther. Field. Jos: Hall, Geo: Abbot, Hooker, Mornaeus, Prideaux, Calvin. And Dr. Jer: Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying (Pag: 251. Sect: ●0.) teaches, that we keep the foundation, and believe many more truths, than can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation. And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party, allowed to them possibility of Salvation, whilst their errors are not faults of their will, but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding, (which, as I said, may easily be believed of us Catholics, 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 vain and unhandsome superstructures. And in particular he shows that Prayer for the dead, and the Doctrine of transubstantiation, are not Fundamental errors; and also sayeth: these two be in stead of the rest. Yea he affirms (Pag: 258.) that there is implied as great difficulty in the Mystery of the B. Trinity, as in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and shows 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 jesus Christ, a part of the house of God; That it was evil done of them who first urged a separation: That we are the Church of God; That, the Catholic and Reform make not two, but one same Religion, agreeing in all principal points of Religion necessary for Salvation; That Catholics and Hugonots are of one Faith and Religion; That they are Domestic of Faith, and branches of the same vi●e. And, (Tract: 1. Sect: 6. Subdiv; 1.). That Those who live, and die 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 appears, that even in the judgement of learned Protestants, Catholics do not err in points Fundamental, or necessary to salvation: and therefore, that Luther could not be excused from Schism, in dividing himself from all Churches, for matters which do not exclude us from eternal happiness; especially, seeing they who forsook us, maintain errors at least not Fundamental, as Potter (Pag: 67.) plainly confesses, and appears manifestly, by the disagreement of Protestants amongst themselves, and the agreement of divers of them with us, even in divers of those points in which Luther pretended the Church to be corrupted, as appears by what we have demonstrated heretofore. Yet to leave nothing untouched, I will go forward, not so much because indeed there remains any Objection of moment against us, as to take away all pretence of cavils; as also, to take occasion of delivering some Considerations, of importance against our Adversaries. 153. Object: 15. Although the errors of the Roman Church be not fundamental in themselves, yet they are against God's Revelation, and Command, not to deny any least truth testified by that supreme Uerity, and consequently such errors 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 have been corrupted with such errors, but also against the Reformers thereof; seeing of Protestants holding contradictoryes, some de facto must be in error; whereof Grotius; Rivetiani Apologetici Discu: P: 15. saith; Protestantium Confessiones in multis rebus ita dissident, ut conciliari nullo modo possint. Uidentur autem Genevenses cum Harmoniam Confessionum edidere, ita credidisse, Harmoniam esse dissidentes Confessiones in unum Uolumen compingere. The Confessions of Faith of Protestants do so disagree, that it is impossible they can be reconciled. It seems that they of Geneva when they set forth the Harmony of Confessions, were of opinion, that the Harmony or agreement of Confessions, did consist only in binding up in one Volume 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.) speaks plainly: Quoniam nemo est qui non &c. Because none is free from some clova of ignorance, we must either leave no Church at all or we must Pardon errors in those things, of which men may be ignorant, without breach both of the sum or substance of Religion, and loss of salvation. Mark how this Patriarch of Protestants, acknowledges, that no Church can be free from errors, not Fundamental. Dr. Lawed (Sect 38. Pag: 360.) In things not necessary (though they be Divine truths also) I confess it were heartily to be wished that men might be all of one mind, and one judgement. But this can not be hoped for, till the Church be Triumphant over all humane frailtyes, which here hang think and closes about her. Whitaker (Cont: 2. Q. 5. C. 8.) It is not needful that all should think the same: if such vanity be required, there would be no Church at all. (Potter Pag: 39) It is a great unity 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 errors absolutely destructive and unpardonable, but not from all error which in itself is damnable. Morton (apology (Lib: 1.58) only Papists challenge privilege of not erring. And blessed be God, who hath placed us in a Church which upon evident and necessary, Reason, challenges that privilege, without which there can be not infallibility in Christian Faith, no unity in the Church: of which therefore we have just cause to say with S. Austin Ep 48. (wherewith Charity Maintained ends the second part of his book,) Others (of the Donatists) say: we did indeed believe, that it imported nothing, in what company we did hold the Faith of Christ. But thanks be to our Lord who hath gathered us from division, and hath showed to us, that it agreeth to one God, that he be worshipped in unity. For what a Church is that, which is divided even in points of Divine Faith? If such errors be sufficient to divide from a Church (as Protestants pretend to have parted from us upon that ground, and without which they must confess themselves to be Schismatics) and that no Church is free from such errors; what follows, but that all Churches, and all men must be divided from one another, and no one Church be left in the whole world? And how can they be excused from Schism, in leaving all Churches, for errors which no Church can avoid? And who would be a Protestant, seeing themselves confess, that they neither are, nor can, be free from damnable errors, that is, errors against Divine Revelation, which will actually bring damnation upon them, that keep themselves in them, by their own voluntary and avoidable fault, as you say (Pag: 279. 64.) So as for the General effect of damnation, they differ not from fundamental errors, which also are pardonable by repentance.) Beside, (Pag: 220. N. 52.) you say: by fundamental, we mean all, and only that which is necessary; and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamental to salvation. By which words you must understand 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 believe all things Fundamental, which safety he cannot expect who errs in points revealed (though not Fundamental of themselves) seeing you teach that all such errors are damnable: and in plain terms (Pag 133. N. 12.) you say; their state is dangerous, which can not stand with safety; therefore by Fundamental points with the belief of which, one may safely expect salvation; you must understand all points not only Fundamental of themselves, but such also as are necessary, only, because revealed. And (Pag: 290. N. 88) you expressly give those errors of which we speak, the name of fundamental, (even as one membrum dividens of Fundamental as the Divisum) in these words: Fundamental errors may signify, either such as are repugnant to God's command, and so in their own nature damnable, though to those, which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not unpardonable: Or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernicious and desiructive of salvation. Well now these errors which you acknowledge in the Protestant Church being against God's Revelation and command, must be in their own nature damnable, as you do not deny but they are so; and therefore we say, that Luther and his fellows, could no more forsake the Roman Church for such errors, than they must forsake one an other, till they leave 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 own errors against Faith, as being damnable in themselves. I need not here repeat what I have of necessity often mentioned; That scarcely we hold any Article against some Protestants, in which we have not other learned Protestants, on our side, against their fellows, and I hope, you will not say, that the self same errors, are even in their own nature damnable in us, and not in Protestants; which were a pretty nonsense, and an partiality: therefore, I conclude that this Objection is no less against Protestants, then us: yea it is unansweareable by Protestants, who confess, that really their Church is subject to, and actually, is stained with such errors, which we absolutely deny in respect of the Roman Church, and such as agree with her. 155. And here you must ponder your words (Pag: 280. N. 95.) For, Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 184.) having alleged Potter's words (Pag: 69.) that the weeds 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 yourself make large discourses, in this very Chapter to persuade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome, though supposed to have 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 said above. How I pray, is it all one to make a Supposition, acknowledged by him who makes it, to be a thing both untrue, and impossible, and to speak of a thing, so certainly and immovably true, that the contrary is impossible? The former case treats of a voluntary supposition (which the supposer knows 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 himself to sleep, and leave things to their own nature) to show the precise essence of things, and what will follow in good consequence, upon such an hypothesis of an impossible thing: as in our present case, if the true Church were supposed to err, in points not Fundamental (still retaining infallibility in all fundamentals) it follows, that it were more safe and less evil, and therefore necessary (upon supposition of two unavoidable evils) to remain in the Church, rather than so forsake her, for the reasons alleged heretofore; whereas that supposition (That the Church errs) being taken away (as indeed de facto it is always taken away, that is, it is always false, and impossible) the clear consequence is, that it is not only less evil, but absolutely good, and absolutely necessary, to remain in her Communion; as by reason of the contrary (not voluntary and speculative, but practical and real, and necessary) supposition of errors acknowledged defacto in the Protestants Church, without any pretence that she is in fallible in Fundamentals (as the universal Church is confessed to be even by our Adversaries, and in real truth is infallible in all points; both Fundamental and not Fundamental) the Question cannot remain, whether it be less evil to remain, in the Communion of the Protestant Church; but it must be believed, as a thing certainly true, that it is absolutely evil, and the greatest evil: seeing that by advering to the Catholic Church, I am secure from all errors, and by advering to the Protestants, I am sure to communicate with a Church stained with errors by their own Confession. 157. Secondly. I take an answer, from what you said above (Pag. 290. N. 88) That, errors not Fundamental are repugnant to God's command, and so in their own nature damnable, though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them, not unpardonable. From these words, I say, I will take an answer, if first I have told you; you should have said, they are no sins, and being no sins, you should not have said, they are not unpardonable, but the contradictory, they are unpardonable, that is, they cannot be pardoned, or are not capable of pardon; because God cannot be said to pardon that, with which he was never offended, and pardon supposes an offence. This very thing, is taught by yourself (Pag: 19) where speaking of men who, do their best endeavours to know Gods will and do it, and to free themselves from all errors, you say, So well I am persuaded of the goodness of God, that if in me alone, should meet a confluence of all such errors of all the Protestants in the world, that were thus qualifyed, I should not be so much afraid of them all, as I should be to ask pardon for them: For to ask pardon of simple and purely involuntary errors is tacitly to imply that God is angry with us for them, and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick when he gives no straw; of expecting to gather where he strewed not; to reap where he sowed not: Of being offended with us for not doing what he knows we cannot do. Therefore, say I, and you must infer the same, such errors are not capable of being pardoned; yea you account it a kind of sacrilege, to ask pardon for them. But yet to show, how you are possessed with a perpetual spirit vertiginis, and contradiction to yourself, I offer to your consideration, what (Pag: 308. N. 108.) you say of our pretended errors: We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you do ours, only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not unpardonable. 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 means to know their error, yet of its own nature, and to them who did or might have known their errors, was certainly damnable. (Pag: 263. N. 26) You cite and approve 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 God's great mercy, have their errors pardoned, and their souls 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 use your own words) Tacitly to imply that he is angry with us for them, and to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring brick when he gives no straw &c: of being offended with us, for not doing, what he knows we cannot do. A great mercy not to do that, which were tyranny to do; to forgive that which is no offence! But, as I am forced often to say, it is no news, in you, to contradict yourself. 158. Now I will perform what I promised; and show, that seeing invincible ignorance, in the opinion of all Philosophers, and Divines excuses from sin; if we can prove, that every judicious man, having used all diligence, will find, that whosoever joining himself with our Church, shall be sure, either not to err, or at least, not vincibly, or culpably; the consequence will be clear, that such errors 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 observe; That seeing the Church, (according to Protestants) cannot err in Fundamental Articles; for other points not Fundamental, whosoever remain in her communion, are not obliged under pain of damnation, to choose the more secure part, as they are bound to do, 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 avoiding sin, if they follow a judgement, truly probable, and prudent, in embracing all the particular objects, which the Church proposes to be believed: Because they are sure by this means, not to err in points absolutely necessary to salvation, (in which, the Church which they follow, cannot err) nor to sin, in believing all other points, which she propoundes, supposing they proceed prudently; especially, considering, as I said, that in not believing Her in all, they run hazard to disbelieve her in some Fundamental and necessary Article: which sequel we have showed, even in your own opinion, to be rational. 160. This being observed; I now prove, that whosoever embraceth what the Church proposes, and particularly for points controverted in these times, 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 understanding, do not bring with them evidence of demonstration (to which we have heard Hooker saying. The mind cannot choose but inwardly assent) but yet the understanding may be forcibly drawn by the will, to embrace rather one part, than another, upon prudent reasons, and extrinsecall considerations, which, not to be wanting in our case, appears by reflecting; That for the points controverted, we have the judgement, and Authority, of the Church's existent when Luther appeared, that is, of the universal Catholic Church, if God had any Church on Earth, as you grant he always had: And even yourself speaking of Counsels, say (Pag: 200. N. 18.) I willingly confess, the judgement of a Council, though not infallible, is yet so far directive, and obliging, that without apparent reason to the contrary, it may be sin to reject it, at least, not to afford it an outward submission for public peace-sake. Potter also, (Pag: 165.) Speaks fully, in these words: We say, that such General Counsels as are lawfully called, and proceed orderly, are great and awful representations of the Church Catholic; that they are the highest external Tribunal which the Church hath on earth; that their Authority is immediately derived and delegated from Christ; that no Christian is exempted from their censures and jurisdiction; that their decrees bind all persons to external Obedience, and may not be questioned but upon evident reason, nor reversed but by an equal Authority, that if they be careful and diligent in the use of all good means, for finding out the truth, it is very probable the good Spirit will so direct them, that they shall not err, at least not Fundamentally. Behold, Counsels are not only directive, but obliging; they cannot be rejected; Their Decrees bind to external Obedience, and may not (so much as) be questioned but upon apparent and evident reason; nor reversed but by an equal Authority; if they be careful and deligent in the use of all good means, for finding the truth, it is very probable, the good Spirit will so direct them, that they shall not err, at least Fundamentally; that their Authority is immediately derived and delegated from Christ. 161. Here it is reason I make a pause, and observe some points out of our very Adversaries. First, The universal Church, according to Potter and other chief Protestants, is infallible in fundamental 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 world's end: and so de facto she is infallible, that is, he is as sure that she shall not err in any fundamental point, as he is sure, that Christ shall always have a Church on earth; which ought to be a great inducement not to reject her Authority, without evident reason. Yea seeing he holds Counsels to be fallible in fundamental points, and 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 Fundamentals. 162. Secondly: seeing Potter, Chilling: and Dr. Lawd (whom I cited above) teach, that we are bound under sin, to afford outward obedience to General Counsels, and that we cannot do this in matters of Faith, unless we believe as we profess, we must believe them to be infallible in all things; lest either we sin against Obedience due to them, or, against our Conscience, profess, what we do not believe. 163. Thirdly: seeing their Authority is immediately derived and delegated from Christ, their right to be obeyed, is de jure Divino, of which they were in possession when Luther arose, and therefore it is a grievous sin, not to obey them, unless it can be demonstrated with evidence, that they teach or command something clearly repugnant to the law, or word of Christ. 164. Fourthly: seeing their Decrees cannot be questioned, but upon evident reason, it follows, that the reasons are not first purposely to be sought, and then found, because people prepossessed by passion, have a mind to break with the Church, as it happens in all Schismatiks, and Heretics; but their Arguments must be so pressing, and irresistible, by season of their evidence, that the understanding cannot, by any means, of contrary reason, or command of the will, forbear to assent; which to any judicious man, must needs appear 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 natural light, of all humane reason. 165. Fiftly. Since they cannot be reversed, but by an equal Authority (and Dr. Lawd delivers the same Doctrine, as we have seen above) we are assured, that the Decrees of Counsels before Luther, could not be reversed by Luther, or any other private person, nor by all Protestants; Who never could pretend to have a General Council, and in those Colloquiums, or Conferences, or particular Synods, which they held, could never establish, any universal Union among themselves, but only declared to the world, that they had no possible means of Union, and Concord. And indeed, who should call such a General Council? Or who should preside therein? Or if they would have recourse to secular Princes, it would make little to their purpose; seeing absolute Princes, are no more subject one to another, than different Sects of Protestants, will confess any mutual subordination. 166. Sixtly. Seeing if they be careful in the use of all good means for finding the Truth, it is very probable the good spirit will direct them, that they shall not err, at least fundamentally, they could not be opposed, except by reason more than probable, but men were to presume that they did not err. Neither should you say; if they be careful etc. it is very probable the good spirit will direct them, that they shall not err (which may be said of any two or three, gathered together in Christ's name, if they be careful in the use of all good means for finding the truth; yea the same may be said, of every particular person;) but contrarily, seeing you confess them to be derived from Christ, and that they are the highest external Tribunal, which the Church hath on Earth: and that all are obliged to obey them (which none could be, in errors against Faith) you should say; because they cannot err, God will not fail to afford his effectual Grace, that they be careful in the use of all good means for finding the truth. For accordingly as God hath decreed to bring us to an End, He will not fail to move us effectually to apply all those Means which on our behalf are necessary for such an End. And it were but a most rash, uncharitable, foolish, and false imagination, to think that General Counsels before Luther, replenished with men of learning, sanctity, and zeal of the Truth, were not careful in the v●● of all good means for finding the Truth: and therefore they could not but be assisted by God to find it, nor Luther excused from Schism, and Heresy, by opposing them, and it. 167. These things considered, it cannot but appear to any judicious unpartial man, how impossible it is, that any such evidence should offer itself, against the Faith, and decrees of the Church, or General Counsels▪ as can force the understanding to an assent in despite of any pious affection of the will, and reverence due to God's Church, and Counsels, and the many and great reasons which make for Her: which is unanswerably confirmed, by considering, that Protestants disagree amongst themselves, and many of them in many things agree with us (which I must often repeat) which could not happen, if the reasons against us, were demonstrative, or evident: and in this occasion your Rule, that the property of Charity is to judge the best, will have place, at least for as much as concerns those your own Brethren, who agree with us: As also your other saying (Pag: 41. N. 13.) That men honest and upright hearts, true lovers of God and truth, may without any fault at all some go one way; some another; which shows, that there can be no evidence, against the Doctrine of the Church, with which even so many Protestants agree, but that Catholics have at least very probable, and prudent reasons, not to departed from the Church in any one point; and that, although we should falsely suppose Her to err in points not fundamental, the error could not be culpable, nor sinful, 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 certain that they are in error, which for aught they know, may be fundamental, seeing they cannot tell what Points in particular are fundamental: whereas we adhering to the Church, are sure not to err against any necessary or fundamental truth. And yourself 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 fail of salvation? 168. And then further upon this same ground, is deduced another great difference, with great advantage on our side; that Protestants are obliged under pain of damnation, to make choice of the more certain, and secure part, and must not be content, with a mere probability, if they can by any industry, care, study, prayer, fasting, almsdeeds, or any other means, attain to a greater degree of certainty. For, if indeed they err in any one Article of Faith, necessary necessitate medij, they cannot be saved, even though their error were supposed to be invincible, as heretofore we have showed out of Protestants: Whereas we being assured, that, adhering to the Church, we cannot err in any point, of itself 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 errors, cannot be necessary necessitate medij, as not being fundamental: Yea, since indeed Protestant's can have no other true and solid means, of assurance, that they err not Fundamentally, except the same which we embrace, of believing the Church in all her definitions, they are obliged under deadly sin, to believe all that she proposes, for fear of erring in some Fundamental Article. What I have said, that we proceed prudently, though our Doctrines were supposed to be errors, may be confirmed by an Adversary, Dr. Jer: Taylor; who (in his Liberty of prophesying (§. 20. N. 2.) sayeth; that our grounds, (that truth is more ancient than falsehood, that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church, and leave her in error; that whatsoever is new, is not only suspicions, 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 persuade persons of much reason and more piety, to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their forefather's, which had actual possession and seizure of men's understandings before the opposite professions had a name, (before Luther appeared.) And in express terms he confesses, that these things, are instruments of our excuse, by making our errors to be invinc1ible; which is the thing I would prove. But here I must declare, that, when I say; It is sufficient for us to proceed probably, and prudently; It is still upon a false supposition, that the Church may err in some Point not Fundamental; though in real truth there be no such distinction. For, we are obliged under pain of damnation, to believe the Church equally in all points, and use all, not only probable, but possible means, to find the true Church, and believe her, with absolute certainty, in all matters belonging to Faith; and in particular, That she cannot err in any point Fundamental, or not Fundamental; without the belief of which truth, Christian Faith cannot be certain and infallible, as hath been showed at large. 169. Thirdly. I answer to your Objection, That we absolutely deny, the Catholic Church to be subject to error, either in Fundamental, or not Fundamental Points; or that she can err, either Fundamentally, or damnably, in what sense soever. And therefore, whereas you say (Pag: 280. N. 95.) The errors of Protestants are not so great as ours, we utterly deny, that our Church can believe, or propose any error at all. And though those Catholic Verityes, which we believe, were errors, yet they could not be greater, than those of Protestants, speaking in general; seeing in all the chiefest controverted points, we have divers chief 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 errors, that is, nor whether the points be Fundamental or not Fundamental, nor whether they which be Fundamental, be greater or less in their own nature; nor whether one not Fundamental, be worse than another not Fundamental; because if one error not Fundamental yield not sufficient cause to forsake the Communion of the Church, another cannot: otherwise, you will not be able to assign any Rule, when the Church may be forsaken, and when she cannor; and it is damnable to profess, against ones conscience, any error 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 wisdom, to hold a greater unfundamentall error with the Church, which I know by the confession of our Adversaries, cannot err fundamentally, than by holding a less unfundamentall error, expose myself to danger of falling into fundamental errors, as I proved heretofore: As it is less evil to commit a venial sin, that is, (which abstracting from the case of perplexity) would be certainly a venial sin, than to expose one's self to true danger, of falling into a mortal offence of God. 170. Fourthly; I answer, that as I have often noted, according to you and Dr. Potter, it is Fundamental to the Faith of a Christian, not to deny any point, though otherwise of its nature not Fundamental, being proposed, and believed to be revealed by God; and so your distinction between Fundamental, and damnable Points, as if the errors of Catholics and Protestants were damnable, but not Fundamental, is but a contradiction to your own doctrine; whatsoever error is damnable, is also Fundamental; and whatsoever is Fundamental, is damnable, if we respect the negative precept of Faith, obliging universally, all persons, in respect of all objects, at all times, semper & pro semper, as divines speak, 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 yourself (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 believed, in and for themselves, yet indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence they are so: The necessity of believing them, being enforce, upon us, by a necessity of believing this essential and Fundamental ●●rt●cle of Faith, that, all Divine Revelations are true, which to d● believe, or not to bel●●ue, is for any Christian not only in pious, but impossible. Or else it is requisite, that they be, first actually revealed by God; secondly, commanded under ●●ine of damnation, to be particularly known, and distinctly to be believed. From these words of yours, it clearly follows, that culpably to deny any point, sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God, implies a contrariety with this essential and Fundamental Article of Faith, that all Divine revelations are true; which certainly is a Fundamental Truth; and therefore all errors, that are culpable, and damnable, are in this sense, opposite to a Truth, which indirectly, and by accident, and by consequence, as you speak, becomes Fundamental. The same you deliver (Pa: 197. N. 14.) where you say to Charity Maintained: I deny flatly as althing destructive of itself, that any error can be damnable, unless it be repugnant immediately or mediately, directly or indirectly, of itself, or by accident, to some truth, for the matter of it, Fundamental. Why then do you distinguish between damnable, and Fundamental errors? Morover, if every damnable error (as you confess every error to be, which disbelieves any, sufficiently proposed, Divine Truth) be Fundamental, every damnable error destroys the Essence, of a Church, which you confess, cannot exist together with a Fundamental error, and consequently, the Church, cannot err culpably, even in points not fundamental of themselves, and remain a Church: which is the thing we teach, and you through your whole Book deny, and are forced to do so, in regard you hold that Christ hath always had a Church on Earth, and yet must pretend, that she hath erred, to save yourselves from the imputation of Schism and Heresy. The truth is: every sinful error against Faith, in a point of itself never so small, is damnable, and destroys Faith, Church, and salvation; neither is there any difference, for the general effect of damnation, between errors in Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental; and therefore it is impossible the true Church can err, 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 destructive thereof, and so, as I said, for the Negative 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 Formal object, or Motive of our belief, is the same in them both, namely, the Divine Revelation. But for the affirmative precept, of being obliged to believe explicitly some prime Material Objects of Faith, there is difference, in regard that as such Truths are Fundamental, and necessary to be actually believed, so errors contrary to them, are most properly Fundamental errors, or errors, directly, and immediately opposite to some Material Object of Faith, Fundamental of itself, which every body sees doth not happen in all errors. Otherwise, how do you; Potter and other Protestants distinguish between errors in Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental, if all errors be Fundamental, or against a Fundamental truth? But you err, by not distinguishing, or not rightly applying, the distinction between the Affirmative; and Negative Precept of Faith; nor between the Formal and Material Object thereof. The Negative Precept arises, from the Formal Object, it being universally, and intrinsecè unlawful, to disbelieve any thing, invested with the Divine Testimony; whereas the affirmative Precept, is taken from the Material Object of Faith; in regard that God hath commanded, some Truths to be expressly known, and believed, as absolutely necessary to salvation. Upon this erroneous mistake, yovunadvisedly find fault with Charity Maintained in your (Pag: 197. N. 14.) for saying (Part: 1. Chap. 3 N. 2.) That, errors may be damnable though they be against some Points, for their matter and nature in themselves not fundamental, (which are the precise words of Ch: Ma.) Where you see, he speaks of the Matter, or Material Object, and not of the Formal, 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 own nature, fundamental Truths, so neither can all errors be fundamental Errors. But, say you, the deny all of any revealed Truth, for example, of that of Pontius pilate's being judge of Christ, is destructive of this Fundamental Truth, that, All Divine Revelations are true. I answer, as above that you err by not distinguishing between the Material and Formal Object of Faith, and not considering, that fundamental, or not fundamental Truths, are not to be distinguished in order to the formal object of Divine Revelation (which being the same in all Truths all should be fundamental, or all should not be Fundamental.) But as, I said, that distinction is to be taken, from the Material 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 believe as a Fundamental Truth; and therefore every error against it, must be Fundamental; To this I answer, as above, that those errors are Fundamental, which are directly, and immediately opposed to Fundamental Truths; not those, which only mediately, and by consequence, are such. Now, the error directly opposite to this truth; All Divine Revelations are true is this; All Divine Revelations are not true; which certainly is a Fundamental error, as contrarily, errors opposed immediately, and directly, to Points not Fundamental of themselves, are not Fundamental errors, in the common sense of that distinction: which were no distinction at all, if every error were equally opposite to a point, Fundamental in itself. 171. You desire Charity Maintained to reconcile his doctrine, that errors may be damnable, though they be repugnant to some point, for its matter and nature, not Fundamental, with his other saying (Part: 1. Chap: 4. N. 15.) Every Fundamental error must have a contrary Fundamental 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 say of Charity Maintained; 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 errors are not Fundamental, as not being repugnant to Fundamental truths, and every Fundamental errors must have a contrary Fundamental truth; or rather, have they not a most clear connexion, and parity, that, as an error, not Fundamental, is opposite only to a truht not fundamental; so a fundamental error is opposite to a fundamental 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 form, to which it is repugnant. 172. Thus upon the whole matter it appears; That your affirming our (falsely supposed) errors to be damnable, and so to yield sufficient cause, of deserting our Church, is turned against all Protestants, who confessedly, de facto maintain damnable errors; That although our errors were never so damnable in themselves, yet they could not be so to us, 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 overthrew your distinction of errors, which you say, are damnable, but not Fundamental, while in the mean time, you make all damnable errors, to be fundamental, and which for that cause (if you will speak with consequence) must destroy the unity of Faith, and Church, and hope of salvation: And therefore seeing you grant that there was a Church when Luther arose, it follows, that indeed she was not guilty of any error, even not Fundamental; and that Luther and his followers, were formal Schismatiks, in leaving her communion, upon a false, and impossible supposition, or pretence, of errors. 173. Object 16. (Pag: 260. N. 22.) you speak thus to Charity Maintained: whereas you say, That all Divines define Schism a Division from the true Church, and from thence collect, that there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to departed; I might very justly question your Antecedent, and d●s●●e you to consider, whether Schism 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 inform me in those many Schisms, which have 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 Schism; A causeless separation of one Part of the Church from another. 174. Answer. I have already said enough, against this Definition of yours: yet because you add an Objection about Schisms in the Church of Rome; and because I shall have also occasion to add something to what I said above, I think 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 have already delivered. If then, 175. You have 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 yourself must answer for the old one? But there lies a snake under this smooth grass, and covertly you reach poison, under colour of milk. Socinians make small account of the Church, and Her Authority, and would have such an equality, as might give freedom 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 said 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 fellows, departed not from the Church, because still they remained a part of it, and they departed not from themselves. Thus also you would avoid, that unanswerable Argument of Charity Maint: (Part 1. Chap: 5. N. 35.) That seeing there was a Division between Luther and that Church which was visible when he arose; and that, that Church cannot be said to have divided herself from him, before whose time she was, and in comparison of whom, she was a Whole, and he but a part, we must say, that he divided himself, and went out of Her: Which is to be a Schismatic, or Heretic, or both. Thus you may tax S. John (2. Jo: 19) saying; they went out from us, and ask why rather from us, that is, from the Church, than that they made a Division of the Church, dividing one part from another? But indeed your gloss cannot agree to S. John's text. For, these words, They went out of us, do not only signify, that there was a Division, but 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 us. And (Act: 20.30.) Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things. But, as I said, you may easily be confuted, by the same reflection, which I made upon S. John's words. These Texts are urged by Cha●ity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 251.) to prove, that, separation from the universal Church, is a mark of Heresy: which he also proves out of Vincentius saying. (Lib: Adversus Haer: Cap: 34.) Who ever began heresies, who did not first separate himself from the universality, antiquity, and consent of the Catholic Church. Observe that he saith, from the universality 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 universal Church, is a Catholic, and he who is divided from Her, is an Heretic and Antichrist. Behold still a separation from the Church and not a Division of one part of the Church from another. And S, Cyprian saith (Lib: de V●●t: Eccles:) Not we departed from them, but they from us, and since heresies, and Schisms are bred afterwards, while they make to themselves divers conventicles, they have forsaken the head and origin of truth. Doth not this Saint, clearly declare, that Heretics, and schismatics, depart from the Church and gives the reason, because they have 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 Maintained (Chap. 5. N. 35.) S. Thomas (22. Quest. ●9. Ar.. Corp:) defines Schismatiks to be those who willingly and wittingly divide themselves ab unitate Ecclesiae, from the unity of the Church. S Hierome upon those words (Tit: ●.) A man that is an Heretic. &c: saith Schism doth separate men from the Church. S. Austin (Ep: 48.) we are certain, that none can justly separate himself from the communion of all Nations. And co●t. Parme● (Lib. ●. Cap. 5.) Let us hold it firm and sure, that no good men can divide themselves from the Church. And Ep. 152. Whosoever is separated from this Catholic Church, albeit he think, he lives laudably, by this only wickedness that he is separated from the unity of Christ, he hath not life, but the wrath of God remaineth upon h●m. And that no kind of witnesses be wanting against you to prove that Schism and Heresy signify a departing from the Church; Fulke saith (in his Retentive etc. (Pag. 85.) The Popish Church is but an Heretical Assembly, departed from the universal Church long since Augustine's 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 mark those words, from, the Whole; which signify that they were a Part, and the universal Church, a Whole. Field (of the Church, Lib. 1. Cap. 13. & 14.) maketh it particular unto Schismatics and Heretics, to departed and go out from the Church of God. Dr. Lawd (Pag: 139.) There can be no just cause to make a Schism from the whole Church. Why do you not tell him, that he speaks strangely in saying; There can be no just cause to make a Schism from the whole Church: And that he should have said; It is absolutely impossible to make a Schism from the whole Church: because the part, which so divideth itself, doth still remain one part 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 departed from the Church of Christ; no more than from Christ himself. Will you here, put, of, in place of, From; and then say, To departed of Christ himself, and so make your Doctor speak nonsense? Yourself (Pag: 170. N. 66. and Pag: 272. N. 54.) approve the aforesaid saying of Potter: who also (Pag. 57) saith; whosoever perversely divides himself from the Catholic Communton, as do schismatics, his condition is damnable. But above all, what will you say to your own words (Pag: 339. N. 20.) That, Heretics always separate from the visible Church? Why s●y you nor? Heretics separate of the Church (which would be ridiculous) and not from her, as you say, seeing Heresy always involues' Schism; and if Hetetiks always separate from the Church, Heresy, (which is the formal cause whereby they separate) must be a separation from the Church. 176. Now why do you not correct Scripture, Fathers, Catholic Divines, learned Protestants, your client Potter, and yourself; as you take upon you to control Charity Maintained? But either you do not understand what Schism means, or else you would be very willing, the world should conceive, there is no such thing as Schism. For, if you did consider, that part which separates from the Church, to be no Part. or member thereof, it were easy to see, that Schism may be defined a separation from the Church, but not a separation of one part, from another; seeing that by Schism, those men, who once were a part of the Whole, and comparts with all the true members of the Whole, by Schism cease to be a part: As on the other side, Schism is a departing from the true Church, but not a dividing of the Church. And the reason is, because the Church is still one in herself, and so Schism is always a Division from the Church taken formally as a true Church, but never a division of her, seeing she still remains One true Church, and consequently divided in herself. Besides, when divers Parts constitute, or compound one Whole, the Parts cannot be divided one from another, unless they be conceived to be divided from the Whole, in order to which, they have the denomination of Parts. For, as long as they remain with one Whole, they remain united with one another, as Parts; and as it is said, Quae sunt eadem uni tertio, snnt eadem interse; so in proportion, quae sunt unita in uno tertio, sunt unita interse. Therefore the union with, and separation from the Whole, is the measure of the union, or separation of the Parts from one another. Thus S. Thomas in the place alleged (2.2. Quest: 39 Ar: 1. cor.) saith; Propriè Schismatici dicuntur, qui se ab unitate Ecclesiae separant, quae est unitas principalis. Nam unitas particularis aliquorum ad invicem, ordinatur ad unitatem Ecclesiae: sicut compositio singulorum membrorum in corpore naturali ordinatur ad totius corporis unitatem. And unless 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 united; And when they are divided from the Whole, they are no more parts, in order to those parts which remain in the Whole, of which they ceased, by the division, to be comparts, but become Wholes, and can have the denomination of parts, only by Relation to the Whole, of which they were parts, before the division was made; so as still union with, or division of parts which remain in the Whole, must be taken, as I may say, originally from the Whole: and it is impossible, that two which have been parts of one Whole, can be absolutely separated from one another, and not from the Whole, with which if they remain united, they must also be united with one another, in illo tertio, in that Whole, as I said; And therefore 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 common from, of all Divines. All separation, properly taken, must suppose union; and parts, as parts, must relate to some Whole. What I said, is proved by your own definition, that, Schism 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 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 from the Church, and remain no more a part of it. Therefore their Schism is a Divison from the Church, and not a Division of the true Church, which still remains One true Church: as if a corrupt part be cut of from the Body, the Body still remains one Whole, nor can such a section, or cutting of, be rightly said to be a Division of the Body (which still retains its Wholeness, as I may say, and denomination of a Body) but of one part from the whole Body, and from the incorrupted Parts which remain conjoined 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, therefore, properly, there is no division of one part from another, seeing 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 general, of Divisum, into membra dividentia, where all species participate of Genus, every part of quantity, retains the same nature which it had before the division; and in general the Divisum is involued in every member of the Dividents; and so you imagine, that Schismatics divided from the Church, remain a part of the Church, as if the Church were a Divisun divided into Obedient Persons, and Schismatics, as into membra dividentia, whereas contrarily, the Division we speak of, is not into, but from, that is, we speak of a Division from the Church, which altars the formality and 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 fail to have 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 Logic, while you argue thus; I might desire you to consider, whether Schism be not rather, or at least, be not as well, a Division of the Church, as from it. What I have found by considering your proposition, my discourse both in this place, and heretofore, will inform you. But then, you come with another desire: If you liked not this Definition, I might desire you to inform me in those many Schisms, which have 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 mine, and say; I might desire you to apply your own Objection to your own Definition, and inform me; in those Schisms which you mention in the Church of Rome, or any other Schism, (for, your Objection is common to all) which you say is a Division of some parts, from the other, which of the parts is Schismatical, and which not; and consequently, which is the true Church, and which the Schismatical part. For I hope you will not say, That in every Schism, the true Church loses her Being of one Church, as the Schismatical part ceases to be a member thereof: which Being if the Church retain, you must assign which is the Church, and which is not the true Church, but a Schismatical member divided from Her; so that, your Argument must be answered by yourself: yea it will be harder for you to answer, than for us. For, of two disagreeing parts, every one, as I said before, will think 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 Schisms which have 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 united to the true universal Church, and lawful Head, thereof, which could be but one. Or, if you will imagine, that for a time, it is not known, who is the true Head, and the disagreeing parties proceed bona fide, and cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae, prudently, and charitably; in that case there is no formal Schism, but both parts remain members of the universal Church, and really united to him, who is the true Head: Yea they remain united among themselves mediate, in as much as they are united, in uno tertio, that is, to the true universal Church, and the true Head thereof. And even this proves, that, Schism is not formally a Division 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 Schismatics, if they be united in uno 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 arm cut of from the Body; but it is impossible, that they can be wholly separated from one another, if both of them remain Parts of One whole, in which therefore they must needs be united. Thus, he who inculpably errs actually, against Divine Revelation, is really united to it by preparation of mind; and an implicit belief of all things, which are sufficiently proposed to be revealed by God. Contrarily, it is impossible that one can divide himself from the true Head, or from the whole, but that tacitè he must divide himself from the members, or Parts, which remain united with the Head, and with the whole; as it is impossible, that the hand can be divided from the Body, and yet remain united with the arm, if the arm still remain united with the Body. 177. But you, whose principles give full scope to separations and divisions, love not to hear of one Head, or one Church, or succession of Bishops, or Obedience, and subordination, but of parts, and parity amongst all and evemby this definition you give us an unanswerable Reason, to prove the necessity of an infallible living Guide from whom whosoever disagrees in Faith, must be an Heretic, and of one Head, and Apostolical Sea and Church, from which whosoever departs, may be known to be a Schismatic. Otherwise there will be no certain Rule Measure, or ground, to discover heresies, or judge who be Schismatiks, but-every part will look upon another, not as a Head, or Whole, or superior, but as a part and an Equal, which would be an endless source of perpetual Schisms, without any certain means to convince either part. 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 gave sentence in favour of the Jews, and their Temple, and condemned the Samâritans, as schismatics, or novelists, because the Jews could show a continued Succession of Bishops from the beginning, till their tyme. And who sees not, that for the same reason, Luther and his follows must be condemned of Schism? whereof see more in Baronius (ibid. N. 52.) 178 And now to end this Chapter; in conformity to what was proposed in the beginning thereof, I say; that seeing Charity Maintain confuted all the evasions which Dr. Potter could invent to excuse Protestants from the sin of Schism, and that I have answered all that Mr. Chillingworth hath alleged against the Arguments of Charity Maintained in defence of the Doctor, the conclusion must be, that Protestants are guilty of the most grievous sins of Schism and Heresy, by forsaking the Faith, and communion of the universal Church, or of all Churches extant when Luther appeared, and therefore, that Protestancy unrepented destroys salvation. 169. Having then proved, that Christian Faith is absolutely Infallible; that therefore some Infallible judge or Rule of Faith is necessary; that, this cannot be Scripture alone; that, all though Scripture did contain all points of Faith necessary to salvation, yet it could neither be a sufficient Rule, nor any Rule at all of Faith, if the errors which Mr. Chilling worth holds concerning it, were true; that the Infallible Judge of controversyes in Faith, must be the always visible Church of God; that to oppose her doctrine, and forsake Her communion is Heresy, and Schism; 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 schism, and Heresy; at least, that he hath taught them some remedy, to obtain pardon for those, and all other deadly sins, by proposing some true way to Repentance: and our next Chapter shall show, that the Repentance which he would teach them, is neither sufficient, nor possible, but plainly destructive of itself. A hard condition of Protestants, to be forced for their defence to choose an Advocate, who neither can excuse them from sin, nor prescribes any possible means for pardon thereof! CHAP: VIII. Mr. CHILLINGW ORTHS ERRORS CONCERNING REPENTANCE, ARE EXAMINED, AND CONFUTED. 1. NO benefit is wont to be more welcome, than that which we receive from an enemy, against his will; in regard we enjoy the favour, and yet are absolved from all obligation of rendering thanks, or even acknowledging it. You are forced to confess (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 us, which we cannot yield to Protestants, since without true Faith, Repentance will prove but a mere illusion. And in this, Protestants are greatly obliged to our sincere declaration, of so necessary a Truth, that being in due time clearly warned of the danger, they may seek to put their souls in safety, by embracing that Religion, wherein both we, and our Adversaries, grant a possibility of Salvation. But now, as I said heretofore, that although it were granted, that true Scripture alone is a perfect and total Rule of Faith (as we have proved it not to be) yet it could not be so much as any Rule at all, if your pernicious errors, concerning it, were true: so here I will prove; That although the Doctrine, and practice of Repentance were supposed to remain 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 Excess and too much, no man can hope for Salvation, by means thereof. This we will prove by a particular examination of your several errors: of which, the 2. First, is delivered by you (Pag: 32. N. 4.) in these words: God hath no where declared himself, 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 Love, yet he rejects not, he quenches not, the smoking flax of that repentance (if it be true and effectual) which proceeds from hope and fear. In confutation of which pernicious error, I need not spend pains, or time; since it seems proper to yourself, or perhaps some Associates of yours. But what can be hoped from those, who have forsaken the direction of God's Church, but that they should cross one another in their ways, and end in Extremes, as I have observed, in several occasions, and appears in this particular matter of which we treat? Luther, as may be seen 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 obtain remission of sins! Others, in a contrary extreme, hold, that, perfect sorrow or Contrition is not sufficient without Absolution, as Kemnitius affirms (2. part: Exam: p. 960.) and even your opinion is, That, perfect Contrition will not serve, without extirpation of all vicious habits, which you say, being a work of difficulty, requires time; and so you are singular in a matter upon which eternal salvation depends, agreeing neither with Catholics (who teach that Attrition is not sufficient without Absolution, and that, Contrition alone in all times 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 hereafter. 3. For the thing itself; 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 Fear, could alone be a sufficient disposition, for justifying Grace, and the Theological virtue of Charity, and Love of God. As well might you say, That an Act of Historical Faith, is a sufficient disposition for the virtue of Hope, and Hope for Charity, and so Faith would come to justify: I say, an Historical Faith, which not Protestant holds can justify. But this is the work of our common enemy, to suggest Doctrines, which can produce no other effect, except damnation of souls. For, to what other purpose can this your invention serve? God is always ready, to give sufficient Grace, for an Act of Contrition, when it is necessary (as always it is necessary for the Remission of deadly sins, when Sacerdotal Absolution cannot be had) and yet this your Doctrine, if once it be accepted for true, can have no better effect, than to make men rely upon it, and not apply themselves to an Act of contrition, whereby they might be secure; whereas if your Doctrine be false (as most certainly it is) whosoever contents himself with Attrition, for remission of any deadly sin, shall infallibly be damned, even though we should suppose, that the belief of this error were inculpable; because true Repentance is absolutely necessary to salvation, necessitate medij: wherein 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 therefore this your error, being against both Catholics, and Protestants, every one is bound, by the most strict obligation Charitatis propriae (which obliges us to take the safest means, for the salvation of our own souls, in things absolutely necessary) not to rely on your conceit, but to procure that which is safe, either contrition, or Attrition with Absolution; and so your Doctrine, can never be practised 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 us Catholics, 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 upon any reason of temporal Hope, or fear, or desire, or any thing else) is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of Penance, to receive absolution, and be justified before God, by taking away the guilt of all his sins, and the obligation to eternal pains. So that already the fear of Hell is quite removed upon conditions so easy, that many men take more pains 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 Doctor, to the chosen champion of English Protestants, Mr. Chillingworth! But as for our Doctrine concerning Attrition, the Doctor is extremely mistaken, (to say no worse) as will appear to any, that reads the sacred Council of Trent, declaring what sorrow is required to obtain pardon of our sins, or Catholic Divines writing on this subject. For, if the sorrow be conceyved upon any Reason merely of temporal Hope, or fear, as the Doctor speaks; we teach that it is in no wise sufficient to make men capable of Absolution, or forgiveness of sins; but it must proceed, from some motive, known by supernatural Faith; for example, the Fear of Hell, or desire of heaven. Secondly; it cannot be produced by the natural forces of men or Angels, as being the Gift of God, and requiring the special moon, inspiration, and grace, of the Holy Ghost: And therefore his examp, of gaining a groat, is so far from being to he purpose, or true, that contrarily, all the wit, pains, and industry of all men, that have be, are, or shall be, yea or are possible to be created, cannot arrive to it, by all the natural forces of them all, though they were assisted with the he●● of all Angels, created, or creable, or of all other natural Creatures contained in the Omnipotency of Almighty God. Thirdly: such sorrow must extend itself to all deadly sins, in order to which it is to be so effectual, that it must exclude all affection to them, and the Penitent m●st be resolved, rather to undergo a thousand deaths, than once concern to the least mortal sin. And therefore, Fourthly; he must resolve to abide, for time to come, all proximas occasiones, or imminent danger ●f falling into any one mortal sin: As also, if he have injured any man, by ●aking away his good name, or goods, or limb, or life, he must effectually, and speedily, procure to give satisfaction, or make restitution, according as the case shall require: yea and sometime, if it be justly feared, that delay will cause a failing in his purpose, Absolution may prudently, or must, be differred, till he have actually satisfied all obligation, the neglect whereof would prove to be a deadly sin. And in a word, th●t sorrow which we call Attrition, differs from Contrition, in the Motive only; because contrition is conceived for sin, as it is against the infinite Goodness of God; Attritition, as it is repugnant to our eternal Salvation and therefore contrition is an Act of the Theological Virtue of Charity Attrition of the Theological Virtue of Hope, which as it moves us to desire, and hope everlasting happiness, so it incites us, to fear the loss thereof, and out of that holy fear, not to fear, any other temporal loss, with the prejudice of our souls; according to those words of our Blessed Saviour, do you not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear him, who can punish with Hell f●re, both the body and soul. Which words declare, that, as I said, a natural fear, merely of temporal loss, though it be even of our life, i● not a sufficient disposition for pardon of sins, as is signified by (Do you not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul;) but it must be conceyved, for some loss known by supernatural Faith, as for the loss of heaven, or pains of Hell; as is signified by the second part of our Saviour's speech, and the adversative particle, sed; but fear him who can etc. This mistake of the Doctor being cleared, I shall not n●d, nor is it for my present 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 seeing there is no certainty among Protestants, what contrition is ecessary for salvation, as we have seen by the disagreeing doctrine of this Doctor, Chillingworth, Kemnitius, Luther, &c: it follows t●●t they cannot be sure, but that they err in a point necessary to sa●ation, and that this your error is very pernicious and prejudicious trolls. 4. Your second Error 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 own functions necessary, but O●dience to God, unnecessary; which will appear, to any man who conside what strict necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men of essectuall mortisation of the Habits of all Vices, and effectual conversion to newness of ●e, and universal Obedience; and withal remembers that an Act of At●tion, which you say with Priestly Absolution is sufficient to salvation, is not mortification, which being a work of difficulty and time, 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 live and die without the practice of Christian virtues, and with the Habits of many damnable sins unmortifyed, yet if ●e in the last moment of his life, have any sorrow for his sin (this, any, is bu●n untruth of yours, as appears by what I said even now against Dr. ●aylor) and join confession with it, certainly he shall be saved. And (Pg: 379. N. 70.) You speak to Catholics in this manner: If I follow te Scripture, I must not promise myself salvation without effectual derelicton and mortification of all vices, and the effectual practice of all Christian virtues: But your Church opens an easier 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 virtue, yet gives me assurance that I may be let into Heave: at a poslerne gate, even by any Act of Attrition at the hour of death, if it be joined with Confession, or by an Act of Contrition without Confession. Here you declare, that perfect sorrow, or Contrition, is not a sufficient disposition for remission of sins, even at the hour of death. A doctrine fit only to make poor sinners despaite! Against this Hypocryticall, and desperate, doctrine of yours, I bring these reasons. 5. First: Whereas you require for remission of sins, not only Sorrow and Detestation of offences past, with a firm Purpose of amendment for time to come, but also the Object of such an Act or Purpose, that is, Actual amendment, which you say, being a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed in an instant, this Doctrine seems to be contradicted by yourself (Pag: 133. N. 12.) In these words: For those that have means to find the truth, and will not use them, they (Protestants) conceive, though their case be dangerous, yet if they die with a general Repentance for all their sins, known and unknown, their salvation is not desperate. You seem either to speak of men brought to the hour 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 sinful Fear, Hope, or some other vicious humane respect; and consequently, must have produced some vicious Habits, and yet you seem to say, such men may be saved by a general Repentance, which being only general, cannot descend to all particulars, as the mortification of all particular ill Habits must do; yea you suppose, that the particular sinful errors, are not known to them; and much less, can those vicious Habits, from which they proceed, be mortified; which cannot be done at that exigent of imminent death: And therefore, either the doctrine, which you seem to teach, that it is possible for such men to be saved at the hour of their death, is false, or else you must grant, that Repentance requires not the mortification of all vicious Habits. 6. Secondly: As I said, of your Doctrine concerning the fallibility of Christian Faith, and of your Doctrine of Attrition, that they could serve only to bring men to damnation; so I say of this your Assertion; that no sinner who understands, and believes, it to be true, can avoid desperation, at the hour of death, when he sees, that the extirpation of all vicious Habits, is impossible, and yet Necessary to true Repentance and salvation of his soul. Protestants are wont to receive the Communion at the hour of their death, which, I suppose, you will say, ought not to be done, without true Repentance of their sins (unless you will suppose all Protestants, at the hour of their death, to be free from sin, which is against that, which Protestants themselves suppose, as shall instantly appear) and yet it is impossible for them, at that time, to attain your Repentance, by extirpation of all vicious Habits. In your Book of Common-prayer, in the Order of visiting the sick, it is said; Here shall the sick person make a special confession, if he feel his conscience troubled with any ●eighty matter. Therefore, as I said, Protestants may have some weighty matter at the hour of their death. And then is set down the form of Absolution, which the Ptiest or Minister is to give. But how can he who feels his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter, truly repent at that last hour, by your kind of Repentance, which you say is a work of difficulty and time? 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, capital amongst Protestants, that Faith only justifyes; and that it is impossible to keep the commandments. For, that Act of Faith, which they call justifying, and remissive of sin, is exercised in an instant, and would save a man, though he should die, before it were in his power, to extirpate all vicious Habits. And if it be impossible to keep all the commandments, it is impossible not to commit some sinful Acts, whereby they are broken, and which must necessarily leave after them, some vicious Habits, and so instead 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 holiness? Is not the breaking of God's commandments a sin? Or can he be converted from all sin, to all holiness, and to universal Obedience, as you speak, who cannot avoid 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 Paganism, Judaisme, or Turkism, are baptised at the hour of death, and yet were full of vicious Habits, which they have no time to Mortify or root out? Or will you deny true Repentance, and Remission of sin, to those who after a life led in many grievous sins, and after the Production of many ill Habits, being suddenly converted to Christian Faith, were baptised in their blood, 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 have mentioned, but to those also, who live a considerable time, after sorrow for their sins) 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 remain divers others, which must be rooted out, by little, and little: and yet, while one habit is diminished, or destroyed, another may remain entire, and even be increased: for example, while the habit of injustice is destroyed, or diminished, the habit of intemperance, or impatience, or timidity, may remain, as they were, untouched, or else grow to be more intense, by acts of those vices. Nay, who doth so perfectly, and totally, upon 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, whereby the Habit will return to receive some increase? And then how large a space of time, 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 devil, bad examples, false principles of the world, and other such causes, which make the committing of sin obvious, and easy; whereas the contrary acts of virtue 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 self-love; which universal 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 virtuous. All which declares, how hard it is, to exercise a true Act of virtue, and easy to commit sin, whereby some vicious Habit will be produced or increased, even while we are addressing overselves towards an act, and production of an Habit of virtue; according to the axiom of Philosophers and Divines, bonum 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 avoid deadly sin, for any long time (and so will be acquiring, or increasing vicious Habits) it will appear too clearly, how hard it is, and how much time, industry, constancy, and application, and above all, particylar Grace of God is necessary to extirpate all the Habits of all vices; and that sinners though never so full of hearty sorrow for their sins, must remain in a perplexed, afflicted, and desperate condition, for fear of dying, before they have arrived to your new kind of Repentance, oftentimes impossible, and always uncertain; as will more appear by what I say 10. Sixtly: I would demand, what Rule you, or any man, can possibly give, to discern, and prudently judge, when a sinner hath arrived to that degree of extirpating all vicious, and acquiring all virtuous Habits, which is sufficient and necessary for true Repentance, since in Philosophy, natural contrary Habits, may remain together, 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 remain in their nature, and being, and yet not discover themselves, or appear 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 mind, by Fear, Hope Joy, Sorrow, and the like; and even one vice, may be occasion, that another appears not, or if one of them destroy another, as prodigality, avarice, it is by producing, or increasing, a contrary vicious Habit, whereby the party may seem to move, and yet not go forward; change, but not to the better, and perhaps to the worse: and so your Repentance must be composed, of uncertaintyes, and like that of Judas, more fit to bring miserable, perplexed sinners to the halter, than to Heaven. You object, and even upbraid to Catholics, their making men uncertain of Salvation, by requiring intention in the minister of Sacraments; which I have showed, to be an irrational, uncharitable, and a mere panic fear. But indeed this Doctrine of yours, which requires for true Repentance, conditions oftentimes impossible, and always undiscernible, whether they be performed, or no, doth really put men, upon true and grounded, fear, and perplexityes, and occasion of desperation. It is true, the best Divines teach, that a sinner is not bound to repent himself instantly of his sin; so as he commits not a new sin, if he do it not; because we sinned no positive law of God, imposing any such obligation; and he is assured by Scripture, that God will not deny pardon, at whatsoever time, or instant, he is cordially sorrowful for his sins, with an effectual purpose of amendment. But if he did foresee, that unless he repent presently, it would grow impossible for him ever to repent, for example by reason of death, or madness: in that case he 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 man's self, which binds him to provide for the Salvation of his own soul. Now seeing whosoever commits a deadly sin, doth by that Act, avoidable produce some degree, of a vicious Habit, which may consist with one, yea with many degrees, of the contrary natural Habit of virtue, and morally speaking, will still be receiving increase or addition, by many new Acts, which a sinner, devested of justifying grace, as I said, is prone to commit; it follows, that no man can possibly have any rational, and solid way to judge (but must remain practice uncertain) whether he shall sooner, come to an end of Repentance, or of his life, in your way. And therefore, not to put his soul into so great uncertainty, and hazard, what would remain, but that he be obliged to repent, as soon 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 thereof remain, unless he exercise so intense an Act of virtue, 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 uncertain, whether it hath happened, or no: and therefore the more your Doctrine is discussed, and examined, the more dangerous, pernicious, and absurd, it appears 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 deceive the Reader. First: After the actual committing of any deadly sin, there remains in the soul, habitual sin, whereby one is said to be a sinner, to remain in sin, to be in state of sin, deprived of justifying Grace, an enemy to God, and deserving eternal damnation▪ This Habitual sin, is not any permanent, real, physical, positive Habit, or Quality, but a kind of moral denomination, or ground thereof, which remains, after the Act of sin is committed, till it be retracted, and reversed, by true Repentance, that is, by hearty sorrow for sins past, with a firm purpose, never to offend God mortally for time to come. Thus even amongst men, when one hath offended another, by some injurious Act, there remains in the deliquent, a moral denomination of a person injurious, and an obligation of satisfaction, for obtaining pardon from the person wrongfully offended: Which permanent moral denomination, cannot formally consist, in any real or physical habit, or Quality, seeing it is clear, that the pardoning such an offence, doth neither produce, nor destroy any real Quality, or entity, in the offender, who may be pardoned in absence, and so receive no new, nor lose any former, real entity. If the former injurious action, produced any vicious Habit, yet the remaining or not remaining, of such a Quality, or Habit, is wholly impertinent, to the forgiveness, or pardon granted by the wronged party, who forgives the injury, without knowing, or caring, whether any natural physical Quality, do, or may remain (which is the work of Philosophers to discuss) his motive to pardon, being the moral retractation of the injurious action by a contrary demeanour, submission, satisfaction, and sorrow; which being once duly perfomed, and accepted, if any real entity, or habit chance to remain, it is devested of all formal relation to any Act, as it was injurious, and offensive; seeing that Act is retracted, and revoked, and therefore remains no more voluntary in the offending person: as if we suppose one to have 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 effectual sorrow, and Repentance, before the shaft arrive to the party against which it was leveled, the wounding or killing, in that case, will indeed be said, to proceed from the hand, which discharged the dart, in nature of a real natural effect, but not in the nature of a voluntary, moral sinful action; since all that which was voluntary and sinful, is supposed to have been retracted by true repentance, before the effect was produced. This which we have declared, by the example of one man, compared to another (that the Habitual offence, or injury, consists not in any real Habit, or Quality, but in a moral consideration) holds much more, if we transferr it, to the Habitual offence, of man, against God, who though de facto he be pleased to forgive sin, upon our Repentance, yet, considering the thing in itself, he could not be obliged, to forgive our sin, though our sorrow were never so perfect, and though we were assisted to extirpate all vicious Habits, by the contrary natural Habits of virtue, but besides all this, and all that can be imagined to be done by us, there is required a merciful, and free condonation from his infinite Goodness (whether by infusing Grace, or otherwise, I do not dispute for the present) without which our sins are not forgiven: whereby it clearly appears, that the denomination of being an Habitual sinner, or to be in state of sin, consists not in any real Quality, or Habit, since these may be destroyed, and yet habitual sin remain, and these may remain, though habitual sin be taken away; as likewise if we suppose, Almighty God to hinder miraculously, the production of any real habits, or Qualities by not affoardingh his universal free concurrence or cooparation, without which no second cause can produce any action, or real habits; yet whosoever commits a sinful action avoidable, is, and is denominated, a sinner, till he repent. Therefore it is manifest, that habitual sin, or sin remaining Habitually, consists not in any real physical habit, or quality, and consequently, habitual sin, may remain, though the vicious habit, either be destroyed, or never exist. Which shows; 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 real, physical, and natural Qualities, or habits of virtue, orvice produced by virtuous or vicious Acts, which acts being immediately voluntary, and produced by our freewill, are in themselves good or bad; vicious or virtuous; deserving praise or dispraise; 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 forbidden, or hinder them, from producing virtuous, or vicious habits. When therefore a sinful Act, is once effectually retracted, by true Repentance, the habit which proceeded from it, and was voluntary, only in its cause, or sinful Action, remains now no more voluntary, to that repentant sinner, but retains merely its, as I may say, innocent, real nature, and entity, being in itself 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 prove sinful, yet that facilitation, and provocation, being not voluntary, but purely natural, is of itself no sin at all: As the natural inclination which men have to certain Objects, may be occasion of sinful Acts (if the will give free consent) yet is not of itself any sin, nor voluntary unto us, but natural, and may be occasion of great merit, if bad motions proceeding from it, be resisted by our will assisted by God's Grace. And you might as well say, that Repentance requires the destruction of our nature (I mean, that natural inclination, which Divines call Foams Peccati, from which, sinful Acts may proceed, and which in Adam proceeded from his actual sin, which deprived him of Original Justice) as you require the abolition of all Habits, inclining to sin, and produced by sinful Acts, which being retracted by Repentance, the Habits, or effects of them, can retain no relish or relation to them as they were voluntary, free, and sinful: For which cause, such Habits, have now nothing to do, with any sin, either actual, or habitual; and therefore it is impossible, that they can have any least repugnance, with justifying grace, Sanctity, Charity, and Love of God, and consequently, true Repentance cannot require their destruction, seeing their existence is compatible, with grace, and Sanctity. Besides, if the Acts by which one vicious Habit is destroyed do not of themselves destroy any degree, of some other vicious Habits, with which, those Acts have no connexion; much less, can justifying grace be incompatible, with any natural acquired Habits of vice, these being of an inferior nature, and order to that; and therefore habitual sin, with which grace and Sanctity cannot stand, consists not in such natural acquired ill habits; neither can the extirpation of them, be necessary to true Repentance, which may take away the sin, though those habits remain. Morover the acts whereby 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 said of all other vices, which are Extremes in order to the mean of virtue:) But it is absurd, and impious to say, or imagine, that habitual sin can be forgiven by any sinful Act, since no habitual sin, can be taken away without Repentance, which being a special supernatural Gift of God, cannot be a sin: Therefore we must affirm, that, real Qualities, which we call habits, are not habitual sin; otherwise sin might be pardoned by sin. Which is further confirmed, by considering, that vicious habits, may be expelled immediately and formally by natural habits, and mediate by Acts, whereby the habits of such virtues are produced: For example, The habit of Injustice by the Contrary habit of Justice, and so other vices by their contrary virtues, habits, and Acts. And therefore, if habitual sin consist in real Qualities, or habits of vice, sin shall be forgiven formally by a form, or Quality, or habit acquired by Acts produced by force of nature, which (being but natural) yet shall be ultima dispositio to supernatural infused justifying Grace; which is both absurd, and the wicked heresy of Pelagius. Lastly It is a certain truth, that whosoever departs this life, in any one deadly sin, unrepented, cannot be saved. And it is also true, that some habitual sin, may consist with some natural precedent habits of virtue, which are not expelled by every deadly sin, seeing such a deadly sin may be committed in some matter, which hath no connexion at all with the objects of those natural habits of virtue, and therefore such a sin shall not expel such habits of moral virtues, as de facto it doth not expel, even the supernatural habits of the Theological virtues, Faith, and hope. And if habitual sin may stand with natural, yea and with some supernatural Virtues, what reason can be imagined, but that habitual 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 sinful 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, seeing grace itself may stand with them. 13. The third kind of Habits, I call, infused Habits, of the three Theological virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity, which have for their immediate object, God himself, who is our last End; and infused Habits of moral virtues, which respect or have for their Objects, the Means, which bring us to that End. Now, for the production, or in fusion of supernatural Habits, we may dispose ourselves, by voluntary supernatural Acts, produced by the particular Assistance, of the Holy Ghost; but the Habits themselves, are produced and infused into our souls, immediately and only by God, and not Physically, and really produced, by any even supernatural Acts of ours, as natural Habits are acquired and produced by our natural Acts. And as our soul, which is a spirit, and the life of our body, is created by God alone, so no wonder if justifying Grace which is the spiritual life and soul of our soul, be infused by God, not produced by us. This difference ariseth, from the diversity of nature, between natural, and supernatural, or Infused Habits. Natural Habits do presuppose, a Power, or Ability to produce certain Acts, and Habits are superadjoyned to the same Power, for producing those Acts, with greater promptitude, and facility. But supernatural Habits, not finding in our soul, a power to produce, of itself, supernatural Acts (for how could they be supernatural, if they could be produced by natural forces?) give us such power and Ability; and therefore in rigour of speech, should rather be called Potentiae, than Habitus, Powers, than Habits. For which cause I said, Three sorts of Habits, or as it were Habits, aught to be distinguished in this Question. For. Habitual sin is, as I may say, less than an habit, being no real, or Physical Quality; the infufed habits, are more than mere habits; they are Powers, as I have declared. Natural, or acquired habits, being real Qualities on the one side, and on the other, presupposing in us, a Power to work without them, are really, properly, and purely habits. It is therefore, easy to understand the reason, why our Acts cannot produce supernatural habits, which give us Power to produce such Acts, it being a clear 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 mutual causality, and dependence, between the first production of the Cause Efficient, and the effect thereof; the Cause would be the effect of its own 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 own Father. 14. From this Ground: That supernatural habits are Powers, without which, our soul is not only weak, or infirm, but absolutely unable, to produce any supernatural Act, and therefore cannot be acquired or produced by any Acts of ours; there follows another difference; That, natural acquired Habits, yield as it were a sensible facility, demonstration, experience, and feeling of themselves, by removing impediments, disposing the Organs of our Body, and other such ways. But those other Habits, giving us the first Ability, and Power, and being in their nature essentially supernatural, are not discernible by sensible experience, but may well consist with vicious Habits, and with the facility, or inclination which they afford towards their several Objects; as it happens not seldom, that a man, who in the sight of God, is more holy by supernatural Grace, is carried with a more vehement inclination, or impulsion to sinful Objects, either by his natural 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 itself, that it gives continual matter, of greater merit, by frequent combats, and victories. 15. And here I would ask, whether, if you hold the habits of vice to be habitual sins, even after an Act of Contrition, or Sorrow with a firm purpose to amend, you must not likewise believe, natural acquired Habits of virtues, to be justice, and Sanctity, in the sight of God? And yet this were direct Pelagianism, evacuating the fruit of our Saviour's Satisfaction, and merit; and is in itself manifestly untrue. For the End to which God hath elevated, and ordained Man, being supernatural (the Beatifical Uision, or enjoying God in his Glory) the Means, which bring us to that End, must also be supernatural, and not to be compassed by our natural forces; and therefore natural Habits of virtue, acquired by our own Acts, cannot be true Sanctity, and Justice, which make us capable of the Beatifical Uision, nor can that Repentance, which disposes us for Heaven, consist in the extirpation of vicious Habits, in which Habitual sin doth not consist, as Sanctity doth not consist, in natural Habits of virtue. Neither may it seem strange, that you should believe Sanctity to consist in the acquired habits of Virtue; who hold Christian Faith, to be no more than a probable Assent; or Conclusion, deduced by natural reason, from Premises evidently apt to infer 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 give to understand, that you believe the habit of Charity, to be produced by our Acts, and to be destroyed by little and little, (as it happeneth in natural acquired habits) and that the presence of it, may be discovered by experience, which agrees only to natural habits, working in us by a kind of experimental way: Whereas, if you did believe, the habit of Charity, to be supernatural in essence, not producible by our Acts, but infused by God, for enabling us, to love his Divine Majesty above all things, you would easily see, that it could not be destroyed by parts, but all together, and that only in case of committing a deadly sin, whereby the sinner, in fact voluntarily prefers some creature before God, his Creator, and thereby ceaseth to love him above all things, which yet is essential to Charity, and without which it cannot exist in any least degree. Holy Scripture tells us, he that loves not, remains in death; which declares, that Charity is the life of the soul; and deadly sin being the death thereof, if Charity may stand with deadly sin, the life and death of the soul, should abide together. But, as I said, it appears by this, that you discourse of the Theological vertrue of Charity, as of natural acquired habits, produced by our Acts, may be increased, diminished, produced, and destroyed without any like alteration in the habits of the infused virtues, which are of a different nature, and higher kind. And by this appears how necessary it was, to premise the Introduction, concerning the infused habits, and necessity of Grace. 16. In the mean time, every one may see, that either you make small account of Scripture, which yet you pretend to be a total Rule of Faith, or else, that it is not clear, even when it seems to speak most clear. For, what principle is more received in Christianity, or more evidently set down in Scripture, than that by true, and hearty Contrition, a sinner doth instantly obtain pardon of his sins? And yet you deny this first principle, and as it seems, 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 Psalm 51. according to their account) a sorrowful spirit is a sacrifice to God; and that out of S. Luke (15.18.19.) of the Prodigal child: I will go to my father, and say to him, Father, I have sinned against Heaven, and against thee: I am no more worthy to be called thy son; who upon 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 ask 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 read (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 from his impiety. Therefore, as a just man doth instantly loosegrace, by his sin, so a sinner repenting, doth presentlyobtaine pardon of his sin, and lives by justifying grace, God being more ready to pardon, than punish. And no wonder; seeing a sinner performs all that is in his power, for that instant: And god requires of us, no more than is in our power, nor can he seriously command impossible things (as you expressly confess (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 virtue of some command: Now it is impossible that God should command in earnest any thing which he knows to be impossible. For to command in earnest is to command with an intent to be obliged which is not possible he should do, when he knows, the thing commanded to be impossible. These I say, be your words, and they are very true, but directly against the common doctrine of Protestants, that it is impossible to keep the commandments of God (who surely commanded them in Scripture in good earnest, and not in jest,) neither is there any moment wherein a man endued with the use of Reason, may not avoid eternal damnation, if he cooperate with God's grace, which is never wanting; nor can there be any moment, wherein a man may not hope to be saved. It is a true Axiom of Divines, facienti quod in se est, &c: God doth not deny his Grace to him, who doth all that lies in his power, assisted by grace. I said, A sinner doth all that lies in his power at that instant. For, if he survive, he is obliged to keep all the Commandments, which oblige under mortal sin: but this observance, is not a part of Contrition or Repentance, but only the Object thereof, for as much, as Contrition implies an effectual purpose, of keeping the Commandments: And for that cause the same Prophet (Uers: 14.15.16.) saith; If I shall say to the impious: Dying thou shalt die; and he do penance from his sin, and do judgement and justice, and the same impious restore pledge, and render robbery, walk in the Commandments of life, and do not any thing: living he shall live and shall notdy. All his sins, which he hath sinned, shall not be imputed to him: he hath done judgement and justice, living he shall live. This appears in the conversion and justification of David (2. Reg: 12.) who repenting, had scarce uttered two words, I have sinned to our Lord, when he heard of the Prophet: Our Lord also hath taken away thy sin. Where some observe, that the Prophet said 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, met in the same instant. Which David himself witnesseth, (Psalm: 31. V 5.) I said: I will confess against me my injustice to our Lord: and thou hast forgiven me the impiety of my sin. Upon which place S. Austin speaking in person of David, saith: my confession had not come so far as to my mouth, and God heard the voice of my hart. My voice was not yet in my mouth, and the ear of God was already in my hart. (Actor 2.38.) Peter said to them, do penance and be every one of you baptised in the name of Jesus Christ: And (Uers: 42.) They therefore that received his word, were baptised. But it is clear, that these men, could not have time, to root out all vicious habits: therefore that cannot be required to true Repentance. Prov: 8. I love those who love me. But how can God be said to love those, who love him, if he forgives not the sin, but remains offended, and an enemy, to one who loves him by true Contrition, which implies the love of his divine Majesty, above all things? S. Austin in Enchirid: (C. 65.) saith: Not so much the measure, or quality of time, 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. Psalm: do of themselves prove our Assertion. So that, Scripture, Fathers, and Theological reasons, do all concur in this, that effectual sorrow for sins past, with a firm Resolution to amend for time to come, is a sufficient disposition for remission of sins, whether it be perfect Contrition, without Sacramental absolution, or attrition with it; though it be also true, that perfect Contrition must involve, a purpose to receive absolution, in due tyme. 17. Your third Error is delivered in many places of your Book, and consists in this: That, one who lives in a sinful error against faith, may be saved, by a general Repentance of all his sins known, and unknown, though he do not forsake that culpable error, but live and die in it. In your Answer to the preface of Charity Maintained (Pag: 7. N. 3. you approve 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 die in error and yet die with repentance, as for all his sins of Ignorance, so in that number, for the errors in which he dies: with a repentance, though not explicit and particular: which is not simply required, yet implicit and general, 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 works and Faith in jesus Christ, if they be put in practice, may be an andidote against the errors held on either side: to such he means, and says, as being diligent in seeking Truth, and desirous to find it, yet miss of it through humane frailty, and die in error. 18. About which words, it is to be observed: First, that as I noted above, you and Potter confess, that Catholics hold more Points of Faith than are necessary to salvation; so that the Points in which we differ from Protestants, which you call errors, are not necessary; and accordingly you teach (Pag: 9 N. 7.) that, men may be saved though they hold the doctrines of Indulgences, Purgatory, and the use of Latin Service. And therefore I may turn against you, your own words (Pag: 220. N. 52.) May it please you therefore, now at last to take notice, that by Fundamental, we mean all, and only that which is necessary: and then I hope you will grant, that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things Fundamental to salvation; Unless you will say, that more is necessary, than that which is necessary. These words I say, prove 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, unless you will say, that more is necessary, than that which is necessary; or, that we believe not as many Points as are necessary, though we believe 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 errors of such as being diligent in seeking Truth, and desirous to find it, yet miss of it by humane frailty, and die in error. For, the errors 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, concern works, which are not dead, that is, no sins, nor can be the Object of Repentance, or capable of pardon? I beseech you remember your own express words (Pag: 16. N. 21.) The very saying they were pardonable, implies they needed pardon, and therefore in themselves were damnable. How then do you say, that inculpable errors, may be pardoned by a general Repentance? Or how do you in particular, agree either with Catholics, or Protestants, about the necessity of Repentance of dead works, seeing you disagree from both of them, in declaring what Repentance is necessary? Thirdly: (Pag: 8. N. 3.) you say the Doctor gives them only hope of pardon of errors, who are desirous, and according to the proportion of their opportunityes and abilities, industrious to find the Truth, or at least truly repentant, that they have not been so. In which words you distinguish those, who are desirous and industrious to find the truth from those, who are repentant that they have 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 have not been desirous and industrious to find the Truth, you suppose they know that they have not been so. To whom then shall belong that Repentance, which you call general and implicit of all errors, known and unknown? Fourthly; Howsoever you endeavour to answer these contradictions, it seems you are constant, that a sinful error may be pardoned, though one live and die in it: And then, Fiftly, The difficulty, which I spoke of above, comes to urge you: How such a man can attain your kind of Repentance, at the hour of his death, when it is impossible. But let us go forward. 19 (Pag: 21.) you say; If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in any error, by any sin of his will (as it is to be feared many million are) such Error is, as the cause of it, sinful and damnable: yet not exclusive of all hope of salvation, but pardonable if discovered, upon a particular explicit Repentance, if not discovered, upon a general and implicit Repentance for all sins known and unknown: in which number, all sinful Errors must of necessity be contained, (Pag: 168. N. 52.) speaking of error proceeding from some Voluntary and avoidable fault, and in its own nature damnable, You say: If the party so erring, die with Contrition for all his sins known and unknown (as his Error can be no impediment but he may) his Error though in itself damnable, to him, according to your Doctrine (Charity Maintained disclaims from any such false, and implicatory Doctrine, as this it) will not prove so: As the most malignant poison, will not poison him that receives with it a more powerful Antidote. In these and other passages of your Book, you teach, that a sinful, and damnable Error (for of such we must speak, when we speak of Repentance, to object whereof his sin) may be forgiven, while one remains in such an Error, or without relinquishing it; which is a most pernicious error, and destructive of itself. For, if his error be sinful; it is not, because he sees it to be an error, and yet persists in it; which is impossible, seeing that to judge a particular error to be an error, is to forsake it and embrace the contrary truth, because an error discovered, is destroyed; neither is it an error, but a true judgement, to judge that an Error is an Error, according to the saying of S. Austin (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 said to know false things, except by knowing they are false: &c: But an error is sinful. because he gives a culpable cause thereof, either by not vising diligence to find the truth, in a matter of highest moment, which is that unum necessarium, that one necessary Thing, of which our saviour spoke, and to which, all other things are to be referred, and therefore requires our chiefest, and utmost endeavour, and all that may any way put it in hazard, ought instantly to strike us with a most deep fright, and move us to fly from it, tanquam a fancy colubri, as from the face of a serpent, o● by reason of pride, confidence in his own wit or judgement, or the like sinful cause, which must be known and voluntary, in order to such an error, and ignorance; otherwise they could not be sinful, as we have seen out of your own words, that we cannot be obliged to that which is not in our power. Now, if the cause of such error be sinful, and voluntary, to say, one may be pardoned of that sin, without actually forsaking it, is to say: A sin may be repent, and forgiven, while one is actually persisting in the committing of it, and seeing to pardon a sin, is to destroy it, and to be committing it, is to conserve it in being, sin should be destroyed, and conserved; be and not be, at the same time; which is a manifest contradiction. 20. But you say, The sinner may have Repentance of all sins known, and unknown. I answer: You are in a great error, 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 itself 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 himself 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 thereof to proceed in the understanding, 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 affirm errors 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 speak; in regard, that our good God (whose will is that all should be saved, and come to the knowledge of Truth) never fails to be frequently preventing, illuminating, moving, and strongly inciting the souls of men to embrace the true Faith, Religion and church, within which he hath confined salvation, and is continually speaking so loud as he may be clearly heard, and so strongly, as every one must confess himself guilty, if he do not obey, and harken to a voice so sweet forcible, and Divine. And therefore your Contrition of all sins known and unknown, comes to be a mere sixion, or illusion; your Repentance of sins which one is actually committing, to be a plain contradiction; and both of them, to contain a most pernicious Doctrine. To comprise all this matter in few words: When you speak of sins not known: if the ignorance be invincible, it is no sin: if vincible, and culpable, it doth not excuse from sin the Error which proceeds from it; and therefore cannot be forgiven, as long as one is committing it, no more than other sins against God's Commandments, for example, hatred, desire of revenge etc. 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 learn; 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 have proved sufficiently, that no Protestant, or other Sectary, can have true Contrition of sins, wholly unknown, or when it is committing them, or while he hath time to amend them, neglects to do it. But the difficulty may seem to remain, what is to be said of a Protestant, at the point of death, if he come to be particularly contrite, of his former culpable negligence, to seek the true Religion (but now hath no time to discuss particular Controversyes) with a firm 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 time to root out all vicious Habits, which cannot be supposed to be few, in persons, who for worldly respects▪ have not cared to seek out the true Religion, on which, every Christian believes, the salvation of his soul to depend. Secondly: This case or supposition yields as much as Charity Maintained intended to prove, That, a formal Protestant cannot be saved, if he persist in Protestantisme. For, he who is heartily sorry that he hath neglected to seek the true Faith, Religion, and Church, and conceives an obligation to have used more diligence therein: doth clearly doubt, whether the Protestant Religion be true, and thereby is no more a Protestant, than he can be a Christian, who doubts, whether Christian Religion be true, it being a true Axiom in Divinity; dubius in side est infidelis, He who doubts of his Faith, is an infidel. 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, believe any Article of Faith with greater certainty, than that itself is certain. Whosoever therefore doubts, whether Protestants Faith, and Religion, be true, ceases to be a Protestant, or to believe Protestant Religion to be true, with that firmness of Faith, which is required for Salvation. And although such a pertinent sinner, be not a Catholic, by the actual belief of those Points, concerning which he hath no time to be particularly instructed, yet he is really and actually a Catholic by believing in voto or desire, whatsoever the Church teaches, and those errors of his, which before were culpable, only by reason of some culpable cause, or neglect to seek the truth, while he had time to do it, after true, and effectual Contrition of such a sinful cause remain errors materially only, and no sins, till it be in his power to examine and reverse them; just as virtuous persons, in the true Church, may by invincible ignorance hold some error against Faith, till they be better instructed. And so the final Conclusion will be, that he who effectually reputes his sin, committed in omitting culpably to seek the true Church, and hath no possible means to examine matters, may be saved, not by a general but by a particular contrition; not of sins unknown, but known: not remaining a formal Protestant, but being a real Catholic, having retracted the former malice of his sin, and believing in desire, all that the Catholic Church believes, and so he is a Protestant neither in act, seeing he doubts of the Protestant Religion, nor in voto or desire; which is to be a professed member of the true Church, and to embrace the truth, and forsake all Error, as in this present Question, we expressly speak of the errors of Protestants, and inquire whether they can be saved with such errors, 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 have time sufficient for seeking, and finding out the truth, and neglect to do it, he waxeth recidivous and falls into a new sin, and his errors grow again to be sinful by reason of their new sinful cause. 23. Your example, that poison will not poison him that receives with it a more powerful Antidote, is either de subjecto non supponente, as if the poison of sin could stand with the Antidote of Contrition; or implies a manifest falsehood, and contradiction, if you suppose, that contrition, can destroy that sin, which one is committing. Natural or corporal poison, may stand with an Antidote, but sin, the poison of the soul, cannot stand with Contrition and so can help no more, than an Antidote not receyved, can hinder the, operation of poison and contrition, cannot be receyved, in his soul, who continues the act, or affection to a deadly sin. And so your example turns against yourself; and this Answer proves to be a more powerful Antidote, than the poison of your objection, which therefore I hope will not poison any, that receives with it the Antidote. 23. Thirdly, I answer, by denying absolutely the case which was proposed; that he who hath sinful errors, at the hour of his death, can have true Contrition; without actual dereliction 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 love of God, is an infallible Disposition to Justifying Grace; as therefore, God in his holy Providence, hath decreed, that after baptism, in the ordinary course, or de lege ordinaria, none shall be saved, out of his Visible Church, so he gives not his effectual Grace to exercise an Act of Contrition in the Will, before he endue him with true Faith in the understanding, that as his errors 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 said, God will have all men saved, which words signify the End, adds, and to come to the knowledge of truth, as the Means, to such an End. And this being the ordinary course; in vain is it, to dispute what God may do de potentia absoluta, by his absolute Omnipotency, or whether there be any physical, or Metaphysical repugnance, between Contrition, and Errors per se loquendo damnable; since those matters wholly depend on God's free will, and holy pleasure, which we cannot know, by Logical, humane demonstrations, but only by Revelation, whereby God hath declared in general, that for Christians, there is no salvation, without professing the Faith of his Visible Church: and for us to put exceptions, to that general Rule, can have no other effect, than to make men negligent in seeking the Truth, in time, upon hope, that they may be saved with Errors against Faith, at the hour of their death, when indeed it will prove too late. Neither can it be objected, that at the hour 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 have already said. First, that this ought not so seem strange to you, whose kind of Repentance is impossible, at that hour of death, as I have often said; and so we may apply against you, your own words (Pag: 390. N. 7.) They that confess their sins and forsake them, shall find mercy, though they confess them to God only, and not to men. They that confess them both to God and men, if they do not effectually and in time forsake them, shall not find mercy. Now by your doctrine men cannot forsake their sins in time, who have not time for rooting out all vicious habits, and therefore shall not find mercy. But by the way; what evidenct Scripture have you, that they shall find it who confess their sins only to God, seeing, 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 have 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 proof. Neither can Contrition be sufficient, unless it imply a firm purpose to perform all that God hath commanded, whereof Confession of deadly sins is one. Secondly I answer, that, as God is supposed at that time to infuse perfect contrition, and change the will, so also you should suppose that he rectifyes the understanding, and the same means which he useth for the one, he may use for the other, whether he do it immediately by himself, or by the ministry and help of some second cause, as a catechist, or instructor, or good books to stir up the species, and then God may give his grace to believe; and it would be incomparably more strange, that God should give Repentance, to Christians remaining out of his Visible Church for matter of Faith, than to clear their Errors, supposing he will give them Repentance, though indeed in our case, there can be no true Repentance, unless all sinful errors be rectified, 24. That which you allege 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 move us so much to detestation and sorrow, as those which are committed with full knowledge; and therefore those hidden sins require a more particular light, and Grace of God, to present them to our souls so clearly and effectually, as we may be perfectly sorrowful for them in particular, and not be deceyved with such a general, ineffectual, sorrow, as you obtrude, without dereliction of the sins, of which men, pretend to repent. 25. And now, I hope it appears, upon examination of your particular errors, concerning Repentance; that you make it either insufficient, by your pretended necessity of extirpating all vicious habits; or contradictory and destructive of itself, by holding a Repentance, joined with the actual committing that sin, for which one reputes: And therefore, that Protestants cannot hope to be saved, though they should die with your Repentance: and consequently that not only Protestancy unrepented, but even repent, in your manner, is destructive of salvation; which is more than hitherto hath been said, and shows what a choice champion you are for Protestants, and how unadvised, or partial they are, who so excessively cry up your Book. CHAP: IX. THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE OF CHARITY MAINTAINED IS EXAMINED. 1. HAving in the precedent Chapters, endeavoured to draw into Heads, the most universal and substantial Points, handled in Mr. Chilling worths Book, either particular to him, or common to Protestants; it remains only, that according to the method held by Charity Maintained, in his Answer to Dr. Potter, we touch some particulars, which perhaps did not necessarily, or naturally, offer themselves, in those general Heads, and yet must not be omitted by me, if it were but for taking away all suspicion, or aspersion, that any thing hath been purposely dissembled, as impossible to be answered; though it be very true, that all difficultyes of moment, have been considered, and examined in the former Chapters. And therefore it ought not to be expected, and much less exacted, that I spend much time, in this particular Survey of every parcel of His Book, being sufficient, that the Reader be referred, to those several places, wherein his Sophisms are discovered, his reasons confuted, Objections answered, forquent contradictions laid open. I will answer his Chapter in order, as they lie, 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 Maintained as perverting the state of the Question, which, say you, was not whether Papists and Protestants can be saved in their several professions, but whether we may without uncharitableness, affirm, that Protestancy unrepented destroys salvation. But this is a difference, without any real disparity. For, Charity Mistaken, and Catholics, believing in their conscience that the Religion which they profess, is true, and the contrary false, Dr. Potter must not take it ill, of Catholics believe they may be saved in that Religion for which they suffer; as Charity Maintained sayeth: (Part. 1. Pag: 27. N. 1. and Part. 1. Pag. 36. N. 17.) this, I say being supposed, it follows, that, we must either believe Protestancy unrepented to destroy salvation; or else, that both Catholics, and Protestants may be saved in their several professions. For if this last were once granted, than Protestants might be saved, though it were proved, that our Religion were true. And therefore all the proofs of Charity Mistaken must be resolved into this Question; whether both Catholics, and Protestants can be saved. Which answer is of itself so obvious, that yourself did perceive it; and therefore you say to Charity Maintained. Neither may it be said that your Question here and mine, are in effect the same, seeing it may be true that you and we cannot both be saved: And yet as true, That, without uncharitableness you cannot pronounce us damned. As, though jews and Christians cannot both be saved, yet a jew cannot justly, and therefore not charitably, pronounce a Christian damned. Which is a very strange speech, as if you would have Catholics not believe Catholic Religion to be true; which if they believe, it follows that Protestants cannot be saved, unless both Catholics and Protestants may be saved, and therefore you had no reason to say, that the Question was not, Whether, both Catholics and Protestants may be saved. For this cause Charity Mistaken gives this very title to his sixth Chapter: That, both Catholics and Protestants cannot possibly be accounted 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 (mark, of the whole discourse) wherein it follows upon the confession of both partyas, that the Catholics and the Protestants, are not both of them saveable in their sever all Religions. Thus (to turn your own example directly against you) supposing jews 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 Catholics so long as they believe their Religion to be true, must believe Protestancy unrepented to destroy salvation so (saith he) the same must they also believe of us, if indeed they believe their own Religion to be true Christian Religion, of which, Christ himself pronounced, Qui non crediderit, condemnabitur. And why must Protestants say of us, as we say of them, but because (as I alleged out of the Title of his last Chapter) Catholics and Protestants are not both of them saveable in their several Religions? And therefore the whole discourse of Charity Mistaken was not so much to prove in particular, the truth of Catholic Religion, and falsehood of Protestantisme, as that, (supposing Catholic Religion be true) it is no uncharitableness, to believe, and profess, that, Protestants cannot be saved, without Repentance, and that, Protestants must say the same of us, if their Religion were true; and so all the Question is resolved, finally, and formally, into this, Whether both Catholics and Protestants can be saved in their several Professions, as Charity Maintained affirmed it to be. 3. After this; (N. 3.) you endeavour to prove out of Dr. Potter, that he answered directly to that Question which Charity Maintained proposed; because the Doctor teacheth, that men of different Religions may be saved by repentance of all their sins of ignorance. But by your leave, the Question is; whether men of different Religions, can be saved, if they live, and die, in that difference, without repentance. For he who reputes his error, or the culpable cause thereof, 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 infidel, in respect of that Faith, as I declared above; and even yourself say (Pag: 25. N. 29.) He that would Question whether knowing a thing and doubting of it, may stand together, deserves without Question, no other Answer, but laughter. Your numbers (5.6.7.) contain nothing not answered already. 4. In answer to your (N. 8.) I say, as heretofore, that Potter sometimes seems to affirm, that it is damnable to disbelieve any Point, sufficiently proposed, as revealed by God: But yet, that both he, and other Protestants do, and must, contradict that their affirmation, in divers respects, as I proved above at large, and therefore whatsoever he seems to say in one place, being contradicted by himself in another, is to be reputed as never said, 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 therefore Charity Maintained had reason to say, that in this particular he never touched the Point really, seeing he himself destroys, what himself might seem once to have builded. 5. All that you have (N. 10.) is answered, by saying, that it is damnable, not to believe, any least Point, which the Church proposes to be a Divine truth, that is, as revealed by God; till which time, one may err, without Heresy. Now, to determine what Points in particular be so proposed, were to run overall particular Articles of Faith: Yet to your instances, I answer briefly: The Quarta decimani, who held, that Easter was to be kept according to the Rite of the Jews, were justly condemned of Heresy, not precisely for the Circumstance of Time, but for the ground of that Assertion, that it was necessary to do so; which would have brought with it, a necessity of keeping all the Rites of the Jews. And therefore you say untruly, that, God had not then declared himself about Easter. But the keeping of Chrismass day, ten days, sooner, or later, goes upon no such ground. For, I never heard, that the Jews kept our Saviour's 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 God's 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 do. The same I say of Predetermination; that what the Church shall determine, will become a matter of Faith. The example of millenaries, and necessity of Eucharist for Infants (which last you untruly Father upon S. Augustine) you are still obtruding upon us, without proving what you say: as also that S. Austin did not hold it as a matter of Faith, that the Bishops of Rome had Right and Power, to judge of all appeals, from all parts of the world; and it is manifestly false, that the Church ever determined, the Doctrine of the millenaries; or that S. Austin did deny the Pope had Right to judge of all appeals: though for the Practice thereof, there might be just cause, not to use it promiscuously, in all occasions. You say, Justine Martyr denies that some good Christians held the contrary to the millenaries: But, even learned Protestants, and more skilful in the Greek tongue than you are, interpret S. Justine Martyr in a direct contrary sense, as I show hereafter. And in fine, our Question is only concerning matters defined by the Church, and not what any particular Doctor might hold. It seems you hold it not to be a matter of Faith, that Heretics may give true Baptism: but S. Austin held, and God's Church believes it, to be such; and by this example we prove, that some Points are matter of Faith, which are not evidently contained in Scripture. 6. To your (N. 13.) I answer: Charity Maintained (N. 6.) said not, that a persuasion that men of different Religions may be saved, is Atheism, but a ground of Atheism: yea, he said not this absolutely, but thus: there is not a more pernicious Heresy, or rather (mark this modification) a ground of Atheism, than a persuasion that men of different Religions may be saved. Where you see, such a Doctrine is not absolutely called Atheism, but only that it may be rather called a ground of Atheism, than a pure, or ordinary, kind of Heresy. And I pray, is not a persuasion, that men of different Religions may be saved without repentance, a ground and disposition, either to deny the Deity, which is to be worshipped only by a true Religion, or not to care much for God, or Religion? And who would dislike this saying of Charity Maintained, pronounced in general, except a Socinian, or some such creature? Yourself say (N. 8.) That, to deny a thing sufficiently proposed, to be revealed by God, is to give God the lie: and to say, that men may be saved, who give God the lie, is it not a ground, and disposition to end in Atheism? Potter saith (Pag: 212.) Whatsoever is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard of the Divine Authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended: that as, such is may not be denied, or contradicted without infidelity. Why do you not question the Doctor, and ask, how he can be an infidel, who believes the true God? Remember your own saying, that the natural fecundity of error is to beget Error. And so what will follow of freedom, and indifferency for all beliefs (of which one only can be true) but a flitting from one Error to another, till they hold no Religion at all? But the truth is, you could not impugn Charity Maintained, 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; whereby it may seem, you do not deny, but it were a ground of Atheism, to assirme, that men of different Religions, may be saved without any repentance, though they live, and die in their error. 7. The rest of your Answer, being only an Answer, to such Demands, as Charity Maintained proposed, which have 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 implicit Faith in Christ and his word, should not suffice as well as an implicit Faith in your Church, I have desired to be resolved by many of your side, but never could) hath been expressly answered (Chap: 2.) where I have showed, that Scripture alone neither extensive contains all necessary Points of Faith, nor as I may say, intensive, seeing even those Articles which it contains, for the true and certain vnderstanding of them, require the authority of the church; to say nothing, that we cannot have an implicit Faith in the Scripture, unless it be resolved into our belief of the Church, for whose authority we receive Scripture itself. Secondly; That, (N. 19) you answer not directly to the Question of Charity Maintained (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 us to show, that every man agreed with the Roman Church, seeing we know, many particular men, have fallen into errors; but we affirm that before Luther, there was no visible true, Orthodox, Church, which disagreed from the Roman, and particularly in those Points, wherein Protestants disagree from us. Thirdly, that (Pag: 23. N, 27. as it should be) you accuse us of want of Charity, even while you are in the act of giving the same ill measure to us, saying, that for want of Charity to Protesiants, we always 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 proclaim in print, that we want Charity, which is the heaviest imputation that can be imagined. For, seeing Charity is major horum, greater than Faith, or Hope, in saying we want Charity, you say we offend against a virtue, of greater perfection, than any other, either Theological or Moral. And so, Protestants in general, are more uncharitable, against Catholics, by accusing them of want of Charity, than Catholics 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 us, of uncharitableness, in saying, they want true Faith (seeing they profess to believe that we also err in Faith,) but because we say, they cannot be saved, supposing they want the true Faith; as we also ought to believe of ourselves, unless we were most infallibly certain of the truth of our Faith, as we are. Fourthly. You show little skill in Divinity, while you make no difference betwixt an erroneous Conscience, and error, whereas Conscience (which is always considered in order to practise) may be practicè true and right, and yet rely upon some invincible speculative error: Fiftly. In vain you labour to prove, that ignorance is not accidental to error; seeing you know very well, that Charity Maintained spoke not of ignorance and error, as if they were accidental to themselves, or all ignorance accidental to error, but that, to be inexcusable or not excusable; vincible or invincible; culpable or not culpable; voluntary or not voluntary; are accidental, both to ignorance, and error, which you will not deny, seeing they are separable, and some error may be vincible, and some other invincible etc. Wherein if you impugn him, you confute yourself, who (Pag: 25.) say, that he who errs, though not conceaveable without ignorance simply, may be very well considered either as with, or without voluntary and sinful ignorance. This occurs concerning your answer to the Preface. Now I come to answer your Chapters, as they lie in order. CHAP: X. 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. 1. I Omit to take notice, that, whereas Charity Maintained in the Title of his First Chapter, speaks expressly of men of different Religions, you turn 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 shows, that no man could do you injury, in saying, that your kind of Christian Faith was but Opinion, whereof you complain (Pag: 35. N. 7.) But this I omit here, and come to tell you, that in vain you take great pains, to pervert notoriously the meaning of Charity Maintained against his words, and intention, about the possibility of the saveablenesse of Protestants; Whereas He, and Charity Mistaken, and all Catholics, believe, and profess the same thing; That, a Protestant, or any other Sectary, if his error be sinful, cannot be saved, without repentance of those errors, it being impossible, that the sin should be forgiven; while one remains in it. And therefore Charity Maintained distinguishing between the sinful errors in the understanding of a Protestant, and other sins, which he might have committed, hath these express words: we have no revelation, what light might have cleared his errors, or Contrition retracted his sins, in the last moment before his death. The reason why besides the relinquishing of his errors, Charity Maintained expressly required retractation of all other deadly sins, was, lest any should think, that for the salvation of Protestants, or any other Sectaryes, it were sufficient, that they were cleared from their heresies, and united to the Church by Faith; whereas indeed, after that is done, there remains a chief business, which is, to conceive effectual sorrow, for all other deadly sins. For which cause, when we understand, that a Catholic who hath true Faith, dies suddenly, or without Sacramental absolution, we are moved with just fear, and grief. So that, Charity Maintained expressly requires two things: A renounciation of errors, and contrition, both for those sinful errors, and all other sins. And therefore you had no reason at all to say (Pa. 31. N. 3. I wish you had expressed yourself in this matter more fully and plainly) he having declared himself very clearly. 2. But you are not only unreasonable, but also, when you take for plain, that which even yourself in this very place say was not plain: And what you say, is only insinuated (that though no light did clear the errors of a dying Protestant, yet Contrition might retract his sins) you take for a plain affirmation, or concession, and continue to do so, and build upon it, through your whole Book, declaring thereby, that you do proficere in pejus, even against your own say, passing from an insinuating, to a certainty; for which cause, the Author of that pithy, and learned treatise, called the total sum, (Pag: 39) calls your proceeding in this particular, an impudent slandering of Charity Maintained: And that, what you cannot obtain by truth and fair dealing, you seek to get by falsehood, 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 down. in a distinct character as the verbal and formal Assertion of Charity Maintained is forged and feigned by yourself from the first, to the last syllable thereof, not only against his meaning in that place, but also the whole drift of his Treatise: and, that in this, you show the Adamantinall hardness of your Socinian forehead, and Samosatenian conscience. And (Pag: 43.) That it is an impudent untruth; and that your collection of it out of Charity Maintained is a fond and voluntary inference; as most certainly it is. For, neither Charity Maintained himself, nor any other who read his Book, did ever entertain any least imagination, of such a meaning. Insomuch, that a Protestant Writer Francis Cheynell hath these words; Men are damned, saith he (Mr. Chillingworth I who die in wilful errors without repentance, but what if they die in their errors with repentance? Answer in the preface, (Pag: 20.) That is a contradiction, saith the jesuit, and he saith true: which shows the Doctrine of Charity Maintained to be, that sinful errors cannot remain with repentance, but must be relinquished. Lastly, to make this your calumny inexcusable, Charity Maintained (N. 5.) hath these very words: But yet lest any man should flatter himself, with our charitable mitigations, and therefore wax carelessin search of the true Church, we desire him to read the Conclusion of the second Part, where this matter is more explained. 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 Catholic Church of Christ, which we shall be sure not to miss, if our endeavour be not wanting to his grace, who desires that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of truth. Where you see, Changed Ma: saith, it is in our power with God's 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 miss thereof, and consequently, that our errors will be sinful, and that we cannot effectually repent of them, without passing to the Truth, that is, without destroying those culpable sinful errors, which, by God's grace, is in our power to destroy, by embracing the contrary truths. And afterward, Changed Ma: saith, that the search of this truth, will not prove so hard and intricate, as men imagine, because God hath endued his visible Church, with so conspicuous marks of unity and agreement in Doctrine; Universality for time, and place; a never interrupted Succession of Pastors; a perpetual visibility from the Apostles to us &c. far beyond any probable pretence, that can be made by any other congregations; that whosoever doth seriously and unpartially weigh these notes, may easily discern to what Church they belong. Thus Ch: Ma: to show how culpable, and inexcusable they are, who do not actually embrace Catholic Religion, and forsake all other Congregations, and errors. And yet, to take away all possibility, for you to deceive the world, with this calumny, Changed Ma: hath these very words: Let not men flatter and deceive themselves, that ignorance will excuse them. For there are so many, and so easy, and yet withal so powerful means, to find the true Church, that it is a most dangerous and pernicious error, to rely upon the excuse of invincible ignorance. What could he have said more, than to style the Hope of Salvation by means of ignorance, a pernicious error? Yet more and more to confute your calumny, and declare his own sense, he adds: I wish them to consider, that he can least hope for relief by ignorance, who once confides therein: because his very alleging of ignorance, shows, that, God hath put some thoughts into his mind of seeking the safest way, which if he, relying on God's Grace, do carefully and constantly endeavour to examine, discuss, and perfitt, he shall not fail to find what he seeks, and to obtain what he asks. 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 sinful errors? Nay, I am sure, Changed Ma: believes that if God will in his Goodness bring a man to Salvation, he will be sure, by his Wisdom to apply those Means, 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 believe, that de facto God will bring none to heaven, without Faith in Christ, and belief of Christian Religion. If than one should ask, whether a Pagan, or Jew, or Turk could be saved with an universal sorrow, for all his errors and sins known, and unknown, what would you, answer? If you say they might be saved, you contradict yourself 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 means for Salvation: The same I answer in our case, that God hath decreed to save none without true Faith, which is only in the true Visible Church; yea, to be a true Christian, and to be a Catholic, is all one, there being not any other true Christian Faith, than that which is taught by the Catholic Church, nor is there any true Church of Christ, but One: and therefore, as you pretend to hold, Christian Faith to be necessary for Salvation, you should also hold the same of the Catholic Faith, and consequently, that none can be saved with any sinful error, contrary to that Faith, nor that it can be true Repentance, which doth not exclude any such error. And, all that you can Object against this truth, may be objected in behalf of Jews, or Turks, against your pretended belief, that Faith in Christ is necessary to Salvation: They might, I say, demand of you why they may not have true Contrition, and pardon of their sins, by a general repentance of all their offences, known and unknown, and among the rest, of their errors against, or ignorance of Christian Religion? and what you answer to them, will serve for a confutation of your Arguments against us. For this cause, Charity Maintained (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 us, by remaining in their former belief, contrary to us. But Ch: M. need not wonder, that you falsify him, seeing you are not ashamed to say (Pag: 34. N. 6.) that according to the grounds of our (Catholic) Religion, Protestants may die in their supposed errors, 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 Catholic Religion, can you dream to collect, that Protestants can be saved by ignorance, or with Contrition, remaining formal Protestants? And it is a comfort for Ch: Ma: to be calumniated by you, in that very thing, wherein you calumniate the whole Church of God. In the mean time, by what I have said, innumerable places (I may say the chiefest part) of your Book, are answered, which go upon this false ground, that men may be saved, without relinquishing their sinful and damnable errors, which you perpetually affirm, without any proof. And what reason can be given, why a man cannot be saved, without relinquishing other deadly sins, for example, Hatred, Perjury, Theft etc. and yet that it is not necessary, to forsake errors, confessed to be sinful, and damnable? But it is no wonder, that Heretics are willing to soothe their heresies with false privileges, denied to all other deadly sins. 4. To your numbers 1.2.3.4.5.6. I have 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 confess they may) hold some particular errors, and yet be a member of the Church universal: why may not the Church hold some universal error and yet be still the Church? Especially seeing you say, it is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church, that makes an error damnable, and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church, I mean that the present Church should oppose itself. Why do you stop here, and not go forward to declare, what lies involued in your discourse, thus: In the time of the Apostles, if a particular man, or Church might have held some error, and yet remained a member of the Church universal: Why might not the Church of that time have held some universal error, and yet have been still the Church? You must answer your own Argument; which is easy for us Catholics to do, by saying: 5. First. No particular man, or Church, may hold any sinful, and damnable error, and yet be a member of the Church universal. Which is a truth to be believed by all Protestants, if they understand themselves: and, as I have often said, Potter confesseth that it is, Fundamental to the Faith of a Christian, not to disbelieve any point, sufficiently known to be revealed by God, and that he who does so, is an heretic, and that heresy being a work of the flesh, excludes from the kingdom of Heaven. And what a Church would you have that to be, which consists of Heretics? 6. Secondly: To put a parity between particular men or Churches, and the Church universal, may very well beseem some Socinian, who makes small esteem of the Authority of the Church, but resolves faith into every man's private judgement and reason; and therefore no wonder, if such a Church be subject to corruptions, no less than private men, whose natural wits, and reason must integrate, as I may say, the whole Authority, of, and certainty, in such a Church, and therefore if particular persons may fall into errors, the Church cannot be free from them: yea she must contain in her bosom, or rather bowels, such corruptions and errors, and so many poisons, contradictory one to another, and yet not break. A noble latitude of hart, and a vast kind of hellishlike Charity! But for us, your Argument hath no force at all. For, we believe the Church, to be the Means, whereby Divine Revelations are conveyed to our understanding, and to be the Judge of Controversyes, as hath been proved heretofore at large; and this being supposed, we must make use of your own words (Pag: 35. N. 7.) That the means to decide Controversyes in faith and Religion, must be endued with an universal Infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth. From whence it follows, that every error in Faith is destructive of that infallibility, which is required in the means 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 than this; The Church of Rome doth err in this or that, therefore it is not infallible. Therefore, say I, to affirm that the Church can err, is to say; she is not infallible, nor can be judge of Controversyes, nor the means to convey Divine Revelations to our understanding; nor could she be a Guide, even in matters Fundamental, as we have proved else where, and yourself grant this last sequel 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 universally infallible, and that any the least error, were enough to blast the whole Authority thereof: As also, if the Apostles, who were appointed to teach Divine Truths, could by word or writing have taught any falsehood, we could not have relied 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 error, it may be reform by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles Doctrine and Scripture. But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the Doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we have recourse for the discovering and correcting their error? These your words, prompt us a ready Answer, and disparity, between the Church, and private persons: who, if they fall into error, the error may be reform by comparing it with the Decrees, Traditions, and Definitions of God's Church. But if the Church err, to whom shall we have recourse, for the discovering and correcting her error? Nay, I do take a forcible Argument, by inverting, and retorting, your own words. For, supposing your Doctrine, that we believe Scripture to be true, and the word of God, for the Authority of the Church; and another saying of yours, that a proof must be more known to us, than the thing proved, otherwise, say you, it is no proof; I argue thus: There is not the same reason for our belief 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 receive the Scripture, as the word of God, and consequently, all the certainty we have of the contents thereof. But if the Church may err, to whom shall we have recourse, for discovering and correcting her errors seeing, as I said, to compare it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine, will be to no purpose, because that very Rule, can be of no force with us, but for the Authority of the Church, which therefore must be as great, or greater with us, than Scripture itself, according to your own saying, The proof must be more known, than the thing proved Our B. Saviour said (Matt: 5.) Uos est is sal terrae: you are the salt of the earth: But if the salt lose his virtue, wherewith shall it be salted? Upon which words, S. Austin (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, forfeit the kingdom of heaven, upon fear of temporal persecution, what other persons shall be found, to free you from error, seeing God hath chosen you to take away errors from others? So we may say: If the Church, which God hath appointed to teach others, and deliver them the Scripture, should err, who could be found, to discover, and correct that error? Your Argument is no better than this: If a man may be a man, though he be deprived of some unnecessary part of his Body, as fingers, feet etc. why may he not remain a man, though he want some parts absolutely necessary, for the conservation of him in Being, as hart, head, brain & c.? For, infallibility in the Church, is a privilege, necessary, and, as I may say, essential 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 vain subtlety, That we say, It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church, that makes an error damnable, and it is impossible that the Church should oppose the Church, I mean, that the present Church should oppose itself; From whence you would collect; that if the Church should err, yet her error being not damnable, (as not opposite to the Church herself) she might still remain a Church; I answer; By the same reason, you may say the Apostles might err, and yet remain of the Church, and their error not be damnable (yea even though it were damnable and fundamental, which is to be noted:) because, It is nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Apostles, that makes an error damnable, and it is impossible the Apostles should oppose the Apostles. The like you may say of Scripture itself, that it might err, and yet that it could not contain any damnable error, because according to Protestants, It is nothing but opposing the Scripture, that makes an error damnable, and it is impossible that the Scripture should oppose the Scripture: which consequences are absurd, and therefore, as you would answer, by denying the supposition, that the Apostles, can teach, or Scripture can contain any error, so you know, we absolutely deny your supposition, that the Church can err in matters of Faith; which if we did grant, we would not be so foolish, as to belief, that, Nothing but opposing the Doctrine of the Church, makes an error damnable; but contrarily, we would affirm, that, precisily to oppose the Church's Doctrine, (that supposition being once made) could never be Heresy, or a damnable error. And therefore we speak very consequently, in, First, believing, that the Church cannot err; and, then, in avouching, that every error repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church, is heresy. The Motto in the frontispiece of your Book, taken out of Jsaac: Casaubon: (in Epist: ad Card: Perron Regis Jacobi nomine scriptâ,) saith; Simpliciter necessaria Rex appellat, quae vel expresse Uerbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendave, vel ex Uerbo Dei necessariâ consequentiâ Uetus Ecclesia elicuit. Observe, that he speaks of things absolutely necessary to salvation, and then I say, if the Church be subject to error, how can we be sure, that Her Deductions from Scripture, are necessary, or only probable; true, or false; though to her they may seem, true, and necessary? You say, it is impossible that the present Church should oppose itself, and do not reflect, by this vety saying, yourself must suppose that the Church can teach nothing but truth. For, if she may err in some Points, and believe aright in others, those errors may be opposite to some truth which she believes, though she do not mark that opposition. You say (Pag: 215. N. 46.) not man's errors can be confuted who together with his error doth not believe 〈◊〉 grant some true Principle that contradicts his error. If then the Church's errors may be confuted, as you will suppose they may, she must believe some truth that contradicts her error; and therefore if it be impossible, that the Church can be opposite to herself (as you say it is impossible) you must grant, that she cannot believe or teach any error; and then indeed it will be impossible for her to oppose herself, 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 Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 19) some may for a time have invincible Ignorance, even of some Fundamental Article of Faith, through want of capacity, instruction or the like, and so not offend, either in such Ignorance, or error. But you cite them thus: Ignorance may excuse errors, even in Fundamental Articles of Faith; omitting that necessary limitation, for a time, without which restriction the words sound, as if absolutely a man may live, and die with invincible ignorance of Fundamental Articles, or of Points absolutely necessary to salvation, and so want means sufficient to besaved, without any fault of his; which is not true. For, if he cooperate with God's holy Grace, they shall be degrees advance to the belief of all necessary Points, though for a time they were ignorant of them. And here I reflect, that, if a Protestant err, in, or be invincibly ignorant for a time, foe some fundamental Point, sufficiently proposed, and believed by other Protestants, they differ in the belief of fundamental Points, and the ignorant party sins not damnably; and yet they sin damnably, who disbelieve any Point sufficiently known to be revealed by God, though otherwise it be not fundamental of itself: and therefore it is clear, that in matters of Divine Faith, consideration is chief to be had of the formal, and not of the material object. 11. In your (N. 7.) you say: God hath left means 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 means, only for superfluous uses, or occasions: and therefore seeing he hath left means for deciding all Controversyes, necessary to be determined, we cannot without injury to his infinite wisdom, imagine that there will never be necessity of determining any. Since then, as I said, God hath given Authority to his visible Church for determining such Controversyes, he will not fail to replenish her with Wisdom to discern, what be the occasions, wherein they ought to be determined, according to the exigence of particular circumstances. Thus the Apostles called a Council, upon occasion of difference amongst Christians about the Law of Moses, and the first four General Counsels, which commonly Protestant's pretend to receive, were gathered upon several occasions, of emergent heresies. The Scripture itself was not written all at once, but as occasion did require: and the same Holy Spirit, which assisted Canonical Writers in writing, did appoint to them the times, and occasions, for which their writings would be most seasonable; yet after they were once written, it was necessary to believe them, as also the Decree of the Apostles in their Council registered (Act: 15.) and other General Counsels, 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 Schism, or corruptions in manners, or invalidity of Sacraments, which cannot be otherwise prevented; If silence may be interpreted to imply a consent; If error be like to prevail, unless it be condemned; if new heresies be in danger to take root, if they be not crushed with speed; if 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 seem strange, that something may grow to be necessary, one time, which was not necessary at another; and in the mean time men may be saved, by an humble preparation of mind to believe, and obey, whatsoever the Church shall, in good time, determine, or command. And by the way, out of this discourse, we may infer, that, Scripture alone cannot be a Rule to decide all Controversyes; in regard that such a Rule, or judge must serve for all emergent occasions, and Scripture being always the same, cannot be applied suitably to all new different circumstances, as I have often said. 12. You say; If some Controversyes may for many Ages be undetermined, and yet in the mean time men may be saved, why should, or how can, the Churches being furnished with effectual means to determine all Controversyes in Religion be necessary to salvation, the end itself to which these means are ordained, being as experience shows, not necessary? But, the Answer to this objection, hath been given already. For, some thing may be necessary for some persons, at some time, in some Circumstances, which are not necessary universally for all Persons, Time's, and Circumstances; as I specified in the Council of the Apostles; in Canonical writings (which written upon some particular occasion, yet require an universal belief) and in general Counsels, which you and Potter affirm to oblige, as we have seen above. Indeed your peremptory wild demand (Why should, or how can the Churches being furnished with effectual Means to determine all Controversyes, be necessary &c:) might well, by your leave, beseem some Jew, ask; why should, or how can Christian Religion be necessary to salvation, if for many Ages it was not in Being, and yet in the mean time, men were saved? Or, why should, or how can the believing and obeying the Definition of the Apostles in their Council, or the belief of the Gospels, and other Canonical writings, be necessary to salvation, if for many ages such belief was not required, and in the mean time men were saved? 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 said without it? You say in the same (N. 7.) I grant, that the means to decide Controversyes of Faith and Religion, must be endued with an universal infallibility in whatsoever it propoundeth for a Divine Truth. For, if it may be false in any one thing of this nature, we can yield unto it but a wavering and fearful assent in any thing. Which words seem not to agree with what you add against Charity Maintained in his (N. 7. & 8.) (that an universal infallibility must be granted to that means, whereby controversyes in Faith are to be determined, unless men have a mind to reduce Faith to opinion) of which words you say, you do not perceive, how from the denial of any of the grounds which Charity Maintained laid, it would follow, that Faith is Opinion: or from the granting them, that it is not so. For my part, I do not perceive, how it was possible for you not to perceive it; since you confess, that without an universal infallibility, we could yield unto such a means, but; wavering and fearful assent a and what is this but opinion, or a mere humane Faith? As contrarily if the Means, or Motive, for which I assent be infallible, and I believe it to be so, and assent with an act proportionable to that motive, my assent must needs be certain, and infallible, and not a wavering, and fearful assent. If this be not so, why do you require infallibility in the said means? Certainly, infallibility is not necessary, to beget, a wavering and fearful assent. 13. You would gladly free yourself of that just imputation, that you confound Divine Faith with opinion. But your tergiversation argues you guilty. You bring I know not what parityes, between Faith and Opinion, but decline the main difference, That Divine Faith, is absolutely certain and infallible; Opinion not. You being conscious of your Antichristian Doctrine, That Christian Faith exceeds not probability, dissemble the chief difference, which I have declared; and you will never be able to acquit yourself of that grienvous, but just accusation, that you change Divine Faith into opinion. Whereas you say, that, as opinion, so Faith, admits degrees; and, that as there maybe a strong and weak opinion so there may be a strong and weak Faith, and add, that Ch: Ma: if he be in his right mind, will not deny it. I answer that still you stick 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 falsehood; As contrarily, Opinion is not free from all fear lest it be false. 14. The confutation of your (N. 8.) about the infallibility of Christian Faith, is the subject of my first Chapter, and therefore I need say no more here, except only to ask, what you can understand by these words of yours? But though the essence of Faith exclude not all weakness and imperfection, yet may it be enquired, whether any certainty of Faith, under the highest degree, may be sufficient to please God and attain salvation. Can the very essence of Faith be weak and imperfect, and yet the degrees thereof, be certain 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 gradual perfection thereof? But, as I said, (directly contrary to that which your words seem to sound) the very essence of Faith, excludes all weakness, that is, all falsehood, and doubtfulness, and every gradual entity thereof includes such a certainty, though one man's Faith, within the compass of the same essence, may exceed the Faith of another, in gradual perfections, as contrarily, though Opinion may have many gradual entityes, yet none of them can exclude formidinem oppositi, a fear that the contrary may prove true, which if any particular degree of intention did exclude, it were not Opinion, but a certain knowledge, and so could not be a degree of intention, under the species, or essence, of Opinion, but an assent, essentially distinct from all Opinion. 15. In your (N. 9) I observe that you do not only grant the possibility of a certainty of adherence in the will, beyond the certainty of evidence in the understanding, but also a certainty of knowledge in the understanding, above the strength of probable Motives, or Arguments of Credibility. For, you say, they know (mark this word know) what they did but believe; and are as fully and resolutely assured of the Gospel of Christ, as those which heard it from Christ himself with their ears, which saw it with their eyes, which looked upon it, and whose hands handled the word of life. If God can do this with his Grace; seeing 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 seen them with our eyes &c:? The rest of this number is answered Chap: 1. 16. You are pleased N. 10. to delight yourself, and deceive others, with a wild collection, as you style it, fathered on Ch: Ma: being only a brood of your own brain. The case stands thus. Ch: Ma: (N. 8.) hath these words: Out of the Principles which I have laid (That there must be in God's Church, some means for deciding Controversyes in Faith, and that it must be endued with an universal infallibility, in whatsoever it propounds, as spoken by God) it undeniably follows, that of two men dissenting in matters of Faith, the one cannot be saved without Repentance, unless ignorance accidentally may in some particular person plead excuse. For, in that case of contrary belief, one must of necessity be held to oppose God's Word or revelation, sufficiently represented to his understanding, by an infallible Propounder; which opposition to the Testimony of God, is undoubtedly a damnable sin, whether otherwise the thing so testified, be, in itself, 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 Premises, either is none at all, or so obscure, that I can hardly discern it: and then you add: the difference may be concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith, is yet overvalued by the Parties at variance, and esteemed to be so: And lastly you set down the wild collection I spoke of, and deliver it in these words: God hath provided means sufficient to decide all controversyes in Religion, necessary to be decided; this means is universally infallible; Therefore of two, that differ in any thing which they esteem a matter of Faith, one cannot be saved. He that can find any connexion between these Propositions, I believe will be able to find good coherence between the deaf plaintiffs accusation, in the Greek Epigram, and the deaf Defendants Answer, and the deaf judges sentence: and to contrive them all into a formal categorical syllogism. Thus you. But Charity Maintained never pretended to make a syllogism, and his words, which I have even now alleged, clear him from your vain imputation, and fond collection. He said expressly, (unless ignorance plead excuse) which makes the errors against Divine Revelation, to be sinful and damnable; seeing he speaks of persons, not excused by ignorance. Neither hath he those words which you add (necessary to be decided) nor those other (which they esteem 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 think it impossible, to contrive his discourse into a formal categorical syllogism (which indeed would be impossible to do with your Additions;) let us suppose, some Truth to be revealed by God, and sufficiently propounded to the understandings of two, by a Propounder infallible in himself, and by them certainly believed to be such (which is the direct supposition of Charity Maintained) and that one of them contradicts the other, and consequently by so doing, opposes a Truth testified by God, and sufficiently propounded as such: And then what say you to this syllogism? Whosoever opposes a Truth, witnessed by God, and for such sufficiently represented to his understanding, by a propounder, believed by the party himself to be infallible, commits a grievous sin (and so cannot be saved without repentance) but in the case proposed, one of the two contradicting parties, opposeth a Truth, revealed by God, and sufficiently propounded to his understanding, by such an infallible propounder: Therefore he commits a grievous sin. Yourself 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 have no just probable Reason, and which may move an honest man to doubt, whether or no it be there contained; as it happens in our case, wherein we suppose, that the erring party is in sinful error, 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 agitation were plainly decided by this infallible means of deciding Controversyes, and the parties in variance knew it to be so, and yet would stand out in their dissension; this were in one of them, direct opposition to the testimony of God, and undoubtedly a damnable sin. Which is the very thing that Ch: Ma: clearly affirmed. And now, you have lost your jest, out of the Greek Epigram, turned by you into a Satire. Thrice happy had it been for you, to have been deaf, dumb, and blind, rather than to have ever heard, or spoken any thing, or that others should have seen those vast absurdityes, and wicked heresies of yours, which openly destroy Christian Religion! But there is a just judge, who is neither deaf, nor dumb, nor blind, but hears, and sees, and punisheth all pride, contempt, and Heresy, and the Approbators of them, if they do not repent, and in time declare to the world such their Repentance. 17. You speak (N. 11.) too Ch: Ma: in this manner: You may hope that the erring Part, by reason of some veil before his eyes, some excusable ignorance, or unavoidable prejudice, does not see the Question to be decided against him, and so opposes only what you know to be the word of God, and he might know, were he void of prejudice. Which is a fault, I confess, but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often. Concerning which words I ask; how can that be a sin, which proceeds from some excusable Ignorance, or unavoidable prejudice? For, if the cause of the error be unavoidable, and consequently invincible, and, as you expressly say, excusable, how can the error itself be sinful? 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 affirm, that men are justly chargeable with all the consequences of their opinions; I answer, as yourself, 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 seeing those consequences, proceed from some voluntary, vincible, root, as ignorance and errors against divine Faith are sinful, and damnable, when they are Effects of sinful 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 belief was not touching any point contained in Scripture.) You either grant, that it is not a Point of Faith, That, Baptism conferred by Heretics is valid, (Wherein, for aught I know, you contradict the chiefest number of Protestants, and in particular your English Church) or else that something 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 clear that you voluntarily alter the state of the Question, wherein Ch: Ma: always supposed, that speech was of Points, contained in Scripture, and that a man opposed the Scripture, culpably: For which cause, (N. 17.) he said: According to Protestants, Oppose not scripture, there is no error against Faith. Oppose it in any least Point, the error (if Scripture be sufficiently proposed, which proposition is also required, before a man can be obliged to believe even Fundamental points) must be damnable: Which words you shamefully conceal, out of guiltyness, that they prevented all your Answers (about Ignorance, or such accidental and variable circumstances, to which you sly) before you gave them: it appears that Charity Maintained spoke expressly of Scripture sufficiently proposed; and (N. 15.) you say, That such Points are fundamental. Our B. Saviour saith (S. Mark 16.16.) he that does not believe shall be damned. And S. Paul, (Gal: 5.20.21.) having reckoned some vices, and among the rest, Sects, concludes; They who do these things, shall not obtain the kingdom of Heaven. Will you now stand up, and blaspheme, and say, that our Saviour and S. Paul should not have pronounced damnation, against disbelievers, Sects, and Heretics, without adding your limitations; to wit unless ignorance excuse, or a general Repentance obtain pardon? 21. In your (N. 15.) you give a new explication of Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental, That these Points either in themselves or by accident, are Fundamental, which are evidently contained in Scripture, to him that knoweth them to be so. Those not Fundamental, 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 denial (of a Point contained in Scripture, and sufficiently proposed, as Ch. M. expressly speaks) any distinction betwixt Points Fundamental and not Fundamental, 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 Fundamental Point, and every error in such Points must be a Fundamental error, and destroy Faith, Church, and salvation: and so you grant, what Ch. Ma. desired in his Question, though you thought not fit to Answer it clearly and in direct terms, but to involve things, by talking of matters nothing to the purpose; and therefore I say, Thirdly; Points deducible from Scripture but probably only, are not Points of Faith, which requires certitude, but may be denied without sin, if one have probable reason, for his denial, as yourself confess (N. 14.) that it is a grievous sin to deny any one Truth contained in Scripture, if he who denies it, knew it to be so, or have no probable reason to doubt of it: Otherwise not. Ch: Ma: as I said, spoke expressly, of Points sufficiently known to be contained in Scripture, that is, of matters of Faith; and by what logic 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 have seen out of your own words. Doth not Logic teach, that the Divisum, must be affirmed of every one membrorum dividentium, and will you affirm faith of that which is not Faith? 23. In your (N. 16.) To the Question of Ch: Ma; whether it be not impertinent to allege the Creed, as containing all Fundamental Points of Faith, as if believing it alone, we were at liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture; you answer, It was never alleged to any such purpose. But, as in other Points, so in this, you speak for Protestants, without any commission, or warrant from them. For, who knows 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 believe the Creed; which reason were plain nonsense if they may believe the Creed, and yet not be of one Faith, nor hope of Salvation, by reason of their disagreement in other Points? Or what avails it them, to agree in necessariò credendis, all which you say the Creed contains, (which yet is very false) if they differ in agendis, in Articles of Faith, by which they are directed for Christian Practice; Protestants differ not only in credendis, but in agendis? Howsoever, I take what you give, that the Creed cannot be pertinently alleged, as if believing it alone, Protestants may disagree in other Points, and yet remain Brethren; and so by this very answer, you grant, what Charity Maintained intended to prove, that disagreement in any one Point of Faith, be it great, or little, cannot stand with Salvation, on his side, whose error is culpable: As wholosome meat, taken alone, may nourish, but if the same man receive poison, he shall not escape death, in virtue of that meat, which otherwise might have conserved him in life, and health. Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocunque defectu. One damnable error, is enough to work perdition, though a man believe all Truths, except that which is contrary to such an error. 22. I have no more to say about this first Chapter, except only that you might have comprised, the substance thereof, in few lines, or words, if you had not perverted the state of the Question, by flying to accidental, and changeable circumstances, and using needless, and endless repetitions of such variable circumstances. CHAP: XI. The Answer to his second Chapter CONCERNING THE MEANS WHEREBY THE REVEALED TRUTHS OF GOD ARE CONVEYED TO OUR UNDERSTANDING, And which 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 unnecessary labour which otherwise must have been spent, in speaking to every particular Section of yours. For, in this Chapter, I find little, but either passion, or calumny, or begging of the Question, or what is answered already, till I come to your (N. 30.) which also contains nothing but a matter of fact, whether Brierly, and Ch. Ma:, and other Catholic Writers, have abused Hooker in saying, that he teaches, that Scripture cannot be proved to be the word of God, by the testimony of scripture itself, but by some other means, namely the Church. For my part, I have read, and considered the place, cited by Changed Ma: out of Hooker (Lib: 3. Sect: 8.) and find, that you are like those charitable people, who are content to want one eye, upon condition, that their adversary be deprived of both. You are willing, that Hooker contradict Himself; yourself; and evident reason itself, rather than he should seem to favour us. I say, he must contradict reason, which can never prove, that Scripture is written by Divine inspiration, as I know you will not deny, seeing all the contents of Scripture, might have been set down 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 believe a Book of S. Austin's, to contain nothing but the truth of God, and yet not to have been inspired by God himself) 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 believe, that the contents thereof were all true. You make him also contradict yourself, who resolve the belief of Scripture into the tradition of all Churches: and C: Ma: specifies not the present Church, but saith only, that Hooker acknowledged that we believe Scripture for the Authority of the Church. He must also contradict himself, who I suppose liking not the Puritans private spirit, and proving that it is not the word of God which doth, or possibly can assure us, (as may be seen in Charity Maintained (Pag: 42. N. 7.) citing the place of Hooker, leaves nothing for our motive to believe it, except the Church. Yet no man denies, but what we first believe for the Authority of the Church, may afterward be illustrated and confirmed by Reason: as Hooker saith, The former inducement (the Authority of God's Church) prevailing somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministered farther reason. And yourself in this Chapter, (N. 47.) explicate some words of Potter in this very sense which now I have declared: And therefore consider, whether you do well in relating Mookers words, to leave out these words (which are immediately joined to those which you cite) If I believe the Gospel, yet is reason of singular use, for that it confirmeth me in this my belief the more. Is this to say, that natural reason (as it is distinguished from tradition or Authority of the Church, in which sense we now speak of it) is the last thing into which our belief of Scripture is resolved, seeing such a confirmation by Reason, comes after we have believed? You say, that when Hooker saith, When we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture &c: the Church he speaks of, seenes to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred: where I put you in mind, of what you said in another place, that, A, Church signify a particular Church, and, The, Church, (as Hooker speaks) signify the universal. How then do you say, That by, The, Church he signifies a particular Church? Or how is the Distinction of, A, and, The, Church such as you would have men believe. But this I let pass, and ask you, what finally you will have hooker's opinion to be concerning the means for which we believe 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 suit with his genius. Natural Reason? That is evidently against reason, as we have showed, and you grant▪ And when he speaks most of reason, he speaks of infidels, or Atheists, calling in question the authority of Scripture, who may be persuaded by Sanctity of Christian doctrine &c: So there remains only the Authority of the Church, if you will have him to say anything. Dr: Covell in his defence of hooker's Books (Art: 4. Pag: 31.) saith clearly: Doubtless it is a tolerable Ovinion in the Church of Rome, if they go no further, as some of them do not (he should have said, as none of them do) to affirm, that the scriptures are holy and divine in themselves, but so esteemed by us, for the Authority of the Church. These words of Covell were cited by Cha: Ma: (N. 26.) but it seems you would take no notice of them, and who could better understand hooker's mind, than this his Defendant? By the way, we may observe, 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 turn bacl to your (N. 11.) where you quarrel at some words of Charity Maintained, and give them a meaning clearly contrary to his sense, and words. You speak thus: You in saying here, that, scripture alone cannot be judge, imply that it may bo called in some sense a judge, though not aboue; yet to speak properly (as men should speak when they writ of Controversyes in Religion) the scripture is not a judge of Controversyes, but a rule only, and the only rule for Christians to judge them by But in this imputation, you have no reason at all, to interpret Charity Maintained, as you do. For, He, in saying Scripture alone cannot be judge in Controversyes, took only the contradictory of that, which, even in this place, you affirm Protestants to believe: Scripture alone is the judge of Controversyes, and therefore it was necessary, for Him to declare his mind, 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 itself alone, or in any other sense; and you know, he doth expressly, and purposely, and largely, prove, that it is against the nature of any Writing whatsoever, to be a Judge; and therefore when you say, men should speak properly, when they writ of Controversyes in Religion, and yet confess that Protestants have called Scripture the. Judge of Controversyes, and that to speak properly the Scripture is not a Judge of Controversyes, you tax Protestants only, and cannot so much as touch Charity Maintain 3. Here also I may speak 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 times , and therefore there is need of a judge to moderate it, whereof in Religion there is no use at all. I pray you, would it not be many times , to execute the letter of the Scripture, taken without a true and moderate interpretation? And for this very canuse, there is great use of a Judge, and Authentical interpreter; otherwise some miscreant might murder his mother and brother, upon some mistaken Text of Scripture, that idolaters were to be taken out of the world; subjects might rebel; no war would be judged lawful, no oaths to be taken in any case &c: And here, I willingly take what you (N. 17.) give me, that, in Civil Controversyes, every honest understanding man is sit to be a judge; but in Religion none but he that is infallible. This I take, and infer, that you wholly enervate the vulgar Argument of Protestants (that Judges are to be obeyed though they be not infallible, and therefore that we cannot infer the Church to be infallible, because we are commanded to hear Her) not considering this difference, which here yourself give, between a Judge in Civil Controversyes, and a Judge in Religion, wherein such a judge is required whom we should be obliged to bel●●ue to have judged right. Which are your own words; whereas in Civil matters we are bound to obey the sentence of the judge, or not to resist it, but not always to believe it ●ust, which are also your words. 4. Neither will I omit 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 itself. ●or, as that general saying of Scripture, He hath put all things under his fee●e, is m●st true, though yet S. Paul tells us, that when it is said, he hath put all things under him, it is manifest, he is excepted who did put all things under him: So when we say, that all 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 itself. Just as a Merchant showing a ship of his own, may say, all my substance is in this ship; and yet never intent to deny that his ship is part of his substance, nor yes to say, that his ship is in itself. Or as a man may say, that a whole house is sipport●d by the foundation, and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house, or to say, that it is supported by itself. Or as you yourselves use to say, that the Bishop of Rome is head of the whole Church, and yet would think us but captious Sophisters, should we infer from hence that either you made him no part of the whole, or else made him head of himself. 5. Answer. Are all those Protestants Cavillers, who teach, that we may know by Scripture itself, that it is the word of God, and consequently, that it may decide this Controversy concerning itself? Doth not Potter (Pag: 141.) say; That Scripture is of Divine Authority, the believer sees by that glorious beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture; and by many internal Arguments found in the letter itself? And doth not the Scottish Minister Baron, after he had confuted the opinions of others, about the private spirit, and the Doctrine of Catholics, concerning the Church, finally resolve, that Scripture is known to be the Word of God, by certain criteria, or marks, found in the Scripture itself? And therefore it cannot be denied, 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 else contradict themselves, as indeed they must, and for that cause, aught to grant, that besides Scripture, there is some other Means, to propose Divine Revelations, and Scripture itself, with the true interpretation thereof. 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 us with certainty, that Scripture is the Word of God; and they will tell you, that if a ship must either be within itself, or no where, a merchant, showing a ship of his own, and saying, all my substance is in this ship, must either grant that the ship is in itself, or else that he spoke untruly 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 itself, it must support itself; and then they would inform you, that seeing not only the contents of Scripture, but also Scripture itself, are objects revealed by God, which revelation can neither be known 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 follows, that. Scripture must be believed for itself, or else 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 head of himself, it could not be said, that he is head of the whole, unless it be also granted, that he is head of himself, but we deny that fond supposition, that he cannot be head of the Church, unless he be head of himself; as contrarily Protestant's teach; that the Scripture cannot be known by an infallible Church, nor, by the private spirit, and therefore it must be known by itself. The same they would answer to those words, he hath put all things under his feet, that he could not be excepted who did put all things under him, if indeed those first words, he hath put all things under his feet, could not be verified, unless he who put all things under his feet, were put under him. Neither can you avoid this retortion of your brethren, except by saying, that we do not infallibly believe Scripture to be the word of God; and therefore there is required no infallibility in ●he Church, from which you say we receive Scripture, or else, that Scripture is not a material object, which we believe; or both; as indeed you affirm, both that Faith is not infallible, and that, Scripture is not a material object of our Faith. And finally, every one who hath care of his soul, must out of these inextricable labyrinths of Protestants, conclude with Catholics, 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 believe Christian Faith to be infallibly true. 6. To your (N. 34.) I answer: That all those Books of Scripture, are to be acknowledged for Canonical which the Church receives for such: Before which declaration, of the Church, all they were very secure, who differed about some Books, because they always believed the Authority of God's Church, which could not fail to propose in due time all things necessary for salvation. But for the contrary reason, Protestants relying upon 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 contained in all the Books, which divers learned men, even of their own Sect, acknowledge to be Canonical, lest otherwise, they may chance to remain in ignorance, or error, of some matter necessary to salvation. 7. The same Answer serves for your (N. 36.) For, it is a Lutheran and Luciferian blasphemy to speak of Esther, and divers other Books of Scripture, as Luther speaks of them, after the Definition of God's Church to the contrary. Whereof see Charity Ma. (N. 9 Pag: 45.) 8. Your other Sections, or numbers, till the 48. concerning the say 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, under Censure, may perhaps be altered) I let pass, not to lose tyme. Only I cannot omit your words (N. 47.) directed to Charity Maintained: You might have met with an Answerer that would not have suffered you to have said so much Truth together; 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 have let me say even so much Truth together. 9 In your (N. 48.) you speak to Charity Maintained in these words: Out of liberality you will suppose, that Scripture, like to a corporal light, is by itself alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent: Yet not withstanding this supposal, Faith still (you say) must go before Scripture, because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes: So the Scripture only to those that have the eye of Faith. Thus you. But it is reason that the words of Charity Maintained should be set down as they are, and not lamely and imperfectly, as you give them. These are his words, (Part: 1. Chap: 1. N. 12. Pag: 52.) Let us suppose, (not grant) that Scripture is like to corporal light, by itself alone able to determine, and move our under standing to assent; yet the similitude proves against themselves (Protestants) for light is not visible, except to such as have eyes, which are not made by the light, but must be presupposed as produced by some other cause. And therefore to hold the similitude, Scripture can be clear only to those who are endued with the eye of Faith, or, as Potter saith (Pag: 141.) To all that have eyes to discern the shining beams thereof that is, To the believer, as immediately after he speaks. Faith than must not originally proceed from Scripture, but is to be presupposed, before we can see the light thereof; and consequently, there must be some othermeanes precedent to Scripture, to beget faith, which can be no other than the Church. 10 This is the discourse of Charity Maintained, and you must not contradict it, unless you will proclaim yourself a Pelagian, that we are able by our natural forces, or understanding, to believe as we ought, in order to Eternal Happiness, as the Eye of our Body can by the natural ability thereof see colours. For, as I shown in the Introduction, we being not able of ourselves, to produce any one Act of supernatural Divine Faith, need the Assistance of the infused Habit, of Faith, which is a Theological Virtue, or something equivalent to it, to enable our understanding, for the exercise of every such Act; and therefore the aggregatum of our understanding, and that Help, is for the believing of Scripture, as our corporal eye is for seeing of light, or colours. And then, Scripture will correspond to light; our understanding with that supernatural Help, 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 Pelagianism, as Christianity Maintained said (Pag: 70.) You say: If Scripture do move and determine our understanding to assent, than the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent, as the cause must be before its own effect, now this very assent is nothing else but Faith, and Faith nothing else than the understandings assent. And therefore upon this supposal, 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, unto which it moves and determines, and consequently if this supposition of yours were true, there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, Scripture itself being able as here you suppose to determine and move the understanding to assent, that is, to believe them, and the verityes contained in them. 11. This is your Objection, which goes upon a false ground, and doth not distinguish, between the Act, and Habit of Faith, or something eqvivalent to it in actu primo, enabling our understanding, to exercise supernatural Acts of believing. For, Scripture doth move and determine our understanding 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 corporal eye) which cannot be produced by Scripture. If you had considered this Truth, you would not have gone forward, and said; 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 conceive that in this comparison, faith Answers to the Eye. But if you will not pervert it, the Analogy must stand thus; Scripture must Answer to light; The eye of the soul, that is, the understanding, or the faculty of assenting, to the bodily eye, and lastly, assenting, or believing, to the Act of seeing. For, I have told you, that our understanding in order to Acts of Faith, alone, cannot be compared to our corporal eye, which by its own natural force can see a proportionate object, and so your whole Analogy is made void, and all that you ground upon it. Thus we have heard even Potter saying, That Scripture is of Divine Authority, the Believer sees by that glorious beam of light that shines in Scripture. I would know, of what Belief the Doctor speaks? Of Faith in Act, or in Habit? If of belief in Habit, than they are Believers, before they see that glorious beam of light which shines in Scripture. If he mean, the Act of Faith, then by that Act, he sees that glorious beam, which Act must therefore be the Eye, whereby he saith the Believer is said to see. And he speaks yet more clearly, in these words following; The Church is the watchman, that holdeth out the light in open View, and presenteth the shining beams thereof to all that have eyes to discern it. Therefore he supposes eyes, to which the Scripture is represented: which eyes being not only the natural Power of our understanding, must be something else▪ And the Protestant Amesius (de Circulo) after he had spoken much of the light of Scripture, comes to say; Tantùm fide ut oculo opus esse statuimus, quae in spiritum resolvitur tanquam in causam. Where you see, he compares Faith to an Eye, and we may ask him, whether he mean of habitual, or Actual Faith, and apply to his Answer (whatsoever it be) the same reflection, which I made even now concerning Potter's 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 follows, that Scripture doth not contain all Divine Revelations; and that our understanding, with that Revelation, must be the eye, whereby Scripture is seen, and not be produced by Scripture. If it be not a Divine Revelation, it must be tried by the Belief of Scripture, and so that Belief must be an eye precedent to the private spirit, and consequently be an eye to itself, and both come before, and follow itself: yea, whatsoever that spirit be, certain, or uncertain, a Revelation, or not a Revelation, yet it must serve for an Eye together with the understanding, to see the Scripture. Whereby it still appears, that not our understanding alone, but it with some other Help (not produced by the Scripture) must be compared to our corporal Eye. The same may be said of Barons Criteria, which cannot be seen without some particular light of the Holy Ghost, and therefore our understanding with that light, is the Eye, not produced by the Scripture, but presupposed to the belief of Scripture; And lastly, you who teach, that we believe for the Authority of the Church, must say, that the eye whereby we see Scripture, is our understanding together with the Tradition of the Church: Which Tradition therefore must be known, and believed before we believe Scripture, and not be produced by Scripture. 12. Whereas you say, Transubstantiation is fruitful of such monsters (contradictions) but they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of error will easily perceive, that jam factum facere, and factum infectum facere, are equally impossible: you speak wickedly, and ignorantly. We have heard Dr. Taylor (in his Liberty &c: §. 10. N. 16.) confessing, that Christians believe the Mystery of the Trinity with as much violence to the Principles of natural and supernatur all Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the Point of Transubstantiation. And it is certain, that this sacred Mystery of the Trinity, to any learned Philosopher, containess far greater dissiculty, than any that can be objected, against Transubstantiation. And yourself, upon a certain occasion, could say to some Protestants, Either deny the Trinity, or admit Transubstantiation; and it was answered, we will rather admit this, than deny that. And with good reason. For, if we respect humane discourse, there are, as I said, more difficult objections, against that Mystery, than against this. And if we regard Revelation, Scripture is more clear for the real Presence, and Transubstantiation, than for the Mystery of the B. Trinity. And if regard were to be had of Heretics, more have heretofore impugned the Doctrine of the Trinity, than of the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation. But no wonder, if they who reduce all certainty of Christian Faith, to the weight of natural Reason, taking hold of the present time, are glad under the name of Transubstantiation, to undermine 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; seeing so many great learned men hold the first, and no man the latter, being between them as great difference, as between, Est, Est; and, Fuit, non fuit. But I fear, you do not understand, what learned men mean by a Reproduction of the same existent thing, or jam factum facere, which signify only that the same thing is, and is; whereas every body knows, that factum infectum facere is to say, That which was, was not; A manifest Contradiction. Yet withal I must add, that no Doctrine of the Catholic Church, doth necessarily depend on that Question, Whether it be impossible, jam factum facere. But enough of this, lest others have occasion to say of me, as you say truly of yourself, 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 Heretics, may assent to some Mystery of Faith, by a humane opinion, and persuasion: but that assent of theirs, is not true Divine supernatural Faith; God not giving his particular Grace, for believing one Article of Faith, to him, who denies another, equally proposed, as revealed by God, whereby even the infused Habit of Faith is destroyed. Unlearned Catholics, may exercise a true Act of Faith; because indeed their assent, comes to rely upon a firm ground, that is, Divine Revelation, propounded by an infallible means, God's Church; whereas Heretics, have no such ground for the resolution of their Faith, as hath been showed, in several occasions. 14. For gaining time, and saving unnecessary pains, I had omitted to take notice of your (N. 51.52.) unless your proceeding had forced me to say at least thus much: that whosoever will read, and compare the words of Ch: Ma. with your Answer, shall find, that he speaks clearly, and that you do so involve, 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 Visible Church of Christ, as yourself grant; and to say, as you do, 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 aught I can judge, is repugnant to Reason and Christianity. For, what hath natural Reason alone to do with the Church of Christ, which cannot be known, except by some supernatural Arguments, as Miracles, Sanctity, Scripture, Revelation etc. 15. I do not understand these your words (N. 52.) addressed to C. M●. That one part of Scripture may prove another part Canen●all, and need no proof of its own being so, you have produced divers Protestants that deny it, but who they are that affirm it, nondum constat. I pray you, where did Ch: Ma: say, that there is any part of Scripture, which needs no proof of its being Canonical? Doth he not prove the necessity of a Living guide, even by this Argument, that otherwise we cannot be assured, what Book, and parts of Scripture, are Canonical? And for discerning what Books be Canonical or suppositious, are not Protestants want to prove, that such or such a Book which they are pleased to style Apocryphal, is not conform to other parts of Scripture, and therefore cannot be Canonical? Do not yourself say (N. 27.) The Question whether such or such a Book be Canonical Scripture, may be decided negatively out of Scripture, by she wing apparent and irreconciliable contradictions between it and some other Book confessedly Canonical? And may we not prove affirmatively, for example, that those Texts of the old Testament, which are cited in the New, are Canonical, because they are cited for such, in Books which we believe to be Canonical? I beseech you to what purpose, or upon what occasion given, do you (N. 51.) utter these words; As if the Scripture might not be the first, and most known Principle in Christianity, and yet not the most known in all sciences. Or as if to be a first Principle in Christanity and in all sciences. Were all one. Charity Maintained said, if Potter mean 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, whereby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture. Do not these words speak of the first Principle, among Christians, who alone receive Scripture, and not of Principles in Metaphysicke, Mathematic, &c: which were nothing to the purpose? Or who ever dreamt, that Scripture could be the most known in all sciences, seeing it is not known by any natural science, but depends on Divine Revelation? Yea, doth not Ch: Ma: expressly say? (That if Potter mean, Scripture to be one of those Principles which being the first and most known 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 known either in all natural sciences, or in Christianity. 16. Out of what hath been said very often, it is easy to answer, and retort all that you have in all your sections till the (N. 62.) For, to us who believe, the Church of God to be infallible, diversity of Tranlations, or corruptions, can bring no harm; seeing we are sure, that the Church can neverapprove any false Translation, or corruption, nor ground upon them any Point of Faith. But for you, who deny the infallibility of the Church, and rely upon Scripture alone, false Translations or corruptions, may import no less, than the loss of your souls, by being led into some damnable error, or left in ignorance of some Point necessary to salvation. For, to rely upon Scripture alone, and yet not to know with certainty, what Scripture in particular is Canonical, 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, Catholics object to Protestants not only difference of Translations, of which you speak (N. 59) but that one of them most deeply condemns the Translation of the other, as Ch: Ma: (Pag: 52. N. 16.) sets down at large. As for the vulgate Translation, approved by the sacred Council of Trent, we are sure, that it can contain no error against Faith; and for divers Readins; we are certain, that the Church can never approve any one that is false, or settle any doctrine upon it, as I said even now. But to treat at large of this Translation, would require a Volume, and is not for this time 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 justified by Faith, translates (justified 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, signify all one with. Alone, Without? Answer: there is as great difference between those two Propositions, as between Truth, and Falsehood. That a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law, is a truth believed both by Catholics and Protestants: for both of us believe, that Faith concurres to justification. But that other Proposition: A man is justified by Faith alone without the works of the Law, signify that we are not justified 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 shameful falsification, answered, poenitet me quod non addiderim & illas duas voces, omnibus & omnium (uz.) sine omnibus operibus omnium legum. Besides; it is strange, you will defend this falsification, of (Alone) seeing (Pag: 406. N. 32.) you wish, that those Chapters of S. Paul which entreat of justification by Faith, without the works of 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. 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 have (Pag: 218. N. 49.) of the danger of justification by Faith alone. Neither I, nor others with whom I have conferred can make any sense of your other works, Or why does not, Without etc. The translation of Zuinglius, This signify 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, inclusive, you vainly triumph, as if you did invincibly prove, that according to our Grounds, men's salvation depends upon uncertaintyes: All which I have answered at large, heretofore. 18. Concerning your (N. 83,) I desire the Reader to consider what Charity Maintained; recites out of Dr: Covell about our vulgate Tanslation of Scripture, and he will find, that your Answer to that particular, is but a vain speculation, and that he supposes the Translation, which is called the Bishop's Bible (and is approved in England) to be the best, as coming nearest to the vulgate; which had been no proof at all, unless 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 times are grown in number so many, and in nature so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them, what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to search out which among all the 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 judgement. If; I say, Dr. Field did not think of any company of Christians invested with such Authority from God, that all men were bound to receive 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 Chimaera, or of a thing impossible, and yet he saith, that there remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, only this, that they search out which among all the societyes in the world, is that Blessed Company of holy Ones &c: (which had been nothing else, but to bring men to desperation, by prescribing one only means, for salvation, and that an impossible one:) And that he, and other Protestants do but cousin the world, and speak contradictions, or nonsense, when they talk of a perpetual visible Church, which cannot err in Fundamental Points, and whose Communion we are to embrace; and yet tell us, 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 uncognoscible, and of no use at all; and therefore they being forced by manifest Scripture, to assert, and believe, a perpetual visible Church, we must, without ask them leave, necessarily infer, that this Church, by their own 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 mean all that are, or have been in the world, and so include even the Primitive Church. But this is no better than ridiculous. For, he saith; What remaineth but diligently to search out which among all 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 &c: You see he speaks of that society of men, which is the Church, and which is the Pillar of Truth, and would have men search it out, whereas the Primitive Church, neither is, but hath been; nor was it for, but directly against, the Doctors purpose, to advise men, to search out the Primitive Church, and her Doctrine, which had required time and leisure, and strength of understanding, which, he saith, few men have, and therefore he must understand, a Church to be found in these times, whose Directions they should follow, and rest in her judgement. To say as you do, that we embrace her Communion, if we believe the Scripture, endeavour to find the true sense of it, and live according to it, is very fond; as if the Doctor 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 been a strange kind of phrase) and in advising us to seek out that society of men, and that Company of Holy Ones, he understood, not men, but the writings of men. Do not yourself say, that the subject he wrote of was the Church, and that if he strained too high in commendation of it, what is that to us? Therefore it is clear he spoke not of the Scripture, in commendation whereof you will not say he strained too high, but of the Church, and of the Church of our times, and so saith; the Controversyes of Religion in our times are grown &c: But why do I lose time, in confuting such toys, as these? It being sufficient to say in a word, that Protestants in this capital Article, of the invisibility, and infallibility of the Church, are forced to utter some main Truths, in favour of Catholics, though with contradiction to themselves. 20. In your (N. 87.) You do but trifle. Charity Maintained (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 prove, for it is very easily granted by them, who profess themselves ready to receive all Truths, 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 cavil, and that Charity Maintained, 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 receive all Truths, not only from Philosophers, but from any man whatsoever? 21. You labour (N. 90.91.92.) to prove▪ that Protestants receive not the Scripture upon the Authority of our Church; but in vain. For what true Church of Christ was there, when Luther appeared, except the Roman, and such as agreed with her, even in those Points, wherein Protestants disagree from us, and for which they pretend to have forsaken our Communion? Doth not Luther (in his Book against Anabaptists) confess, that you have the Scripture from us? And Dove, in his persw sion to English Recusants &c: (Pag: 13.) saith: We hold the Creed of the Apostles, of Athanasius, of Nyce, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, and the same Bible which we receyved from them. And Whitaker (Lib: de Eccles: &c: Pag: 369.) confesseth, that Papists h●ue Scripture, and Baptism &c: and that they came from them to Protestants. That you receive some Books, and reject others which the universal Church before Luther received, argues only, that you are formal Heretics, that is, voluntary choosers, and that, not believing the infallibility of the Church, you have no certainty of any Book, or parcel, or period of Scripture. And whereas you say (N. 90.) that we hold now those Books to be Canonical, which formerly we rejected from the Canon, and instance in the Book of Maccabees, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and add, that the first of these we held not to be Canonical in S. Gregoryes time, or else 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 time, as it is evident out of many places in his works. I answer, that it is impossible the Church should now hold those Books to be Canonical, which formerly she rejected from the Canon: and if there were any doubt concerning these Books of Scripture, they were not doubted of by any Definition of the Church, but by some particular persons: which doubt the Church, did clear in due time, as I have declared heretofore, and answered your Objection out of S. Gregory about the Maccabees, as also Charity Maintained (Part: 2. Pag: 195. which you ought not to have dissembled) did answer the same Objection made by Potter. Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews, I beseech the Reader to see what Baronius anno Christi 60. (N. 42. & seqq.) writes excellently of this matter, and demonstrates that the Latin Church never rejected that Epistle, as he proves out of Authors, who wrote both before, and after S. Hierome, and that S. Hierome relied upon Eusebius, and therefore your absolute Assertion, that this Epistle was rejected in time of S. Hierome, is no less untrue, than bold. Neither ought you to have concealed the answer of Char: Maintain: (Part: 2. Chap: 7. Pag: 197.) where he saith thus: Wonder not if S. Hierome speak not always in the same manner of the Canon of the Old Testament, since upon experience, examination, and knowledge of the sense of the Church, he might alter his opinion; as once he said (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 have a general explication of S. Herome, concerning his rejecting of Books, not admitted by the Hebrews, hear it in his own words (advers: Rufman: Apolog: 2.) whereas I have reported what the Hebrews used to object against the History of Susanna, and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the Story of the Dragon Bel, which are not in the Hebrew: I have not declared, what I thought, but what the Jews were wont to say against us, and he calls Russinus a foolish Sycophant, for charging him with the opinion of the Hebrews, 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 sixth Article, saith in general, of all the Books which you esteem Apocryphal, among which are the History of Susanna, the Hymn of the three Children, and that of the Dragon: (The other Books, as S. Hierome saith, the Church doth read 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 own Brethren, doth explain himself, that he uttered only what the Jews were wont to say against us, and calls Ruffinus a foolish Sycophant for saying the contrary? So as instead 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, relies upon the Authority of the Jews. Thus far Charit: Maint: Which you did not well to conceal: And while you will not receive the Canon from the universal Church before Luther, you send men to the Jews. Now, that S. Hierome received the Epistle to the Hebrews for Canonical, appears out of his Epistle ad Dardanum, where he saith of this Epistle of S. Paul, and the Apocalypse of S. John; Nos utraque suscipimus; we receive them both, though we have heard him say before (add Paulinum) that the Epistle to the Hebrews was put out of the number by the greatest part of men. But howsoever this were, particular Opinyons do nothing concern the Definitions of the Church, as I said. 22. You say (N. 92.) How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman Church, which hath delivered at several times, Scriptures in many places, different and repugnant, for authentical and Canonical? Which is most evident out of the place of Malachy, which is so quoted for the sacrifice of the Mass, that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles, or yours is false. Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of jacob in Genesis, with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrews, according to the vulgar Edition, but above 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 proof, for what you say; whereas you could not be ignorant, but that all difficultyes, which either Protestants, or any other Heretics, could object against us, have been considered, and confuted by learned Catholics. And why did you not cite, those different and repugnant Texts, which you mention in Malachi? Yet the Reader at aventure, may read Bellarmine (De Missa L. 1. C. 10.) and Corn: à Lapide upon (Malach 1.11.) where they learnedly prove the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, 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 Hebrews; I wish you had so declared your objection, that I might have applied a particular, and determinate answer thereto. Now I can only conjecture, what you mean, and desire the Reader, if he desire satisfaction in this matter, to peruse what Corn: a Lapide writes upon (Heb: 11.21.) where he learnedly answers the difficulty, which may seem to be in this place, compared with the (47. Chap: V. 31. of Genesis) see also the annotation of the Rheims testament upon the said place of S. Paul, and the annotation of the Douai translation upon (Gen: 47.31.) who declare this very well; and the former shewes that in your Translation, you clearly falsify the Text of Scripture. I wonder you do not blush to talk of the Bible of Sixtus and Clement, having seen the full Answer which Ch: Ma: giveth to that objection made also by Potter; which is a sign you could not indeed confute what Ch: Ma: said therein, (Part: 2. Chap: 6. N. 3.) 24. Your (N. 93.94.95.96.67.) have been 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 himself 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: whereof I spoke enough heretofore. For the present, I say, that God hath obliged himself, so to teach the Church effectually, the true interpretation of Scripture, that we are infallibly certain, she is free from all error in Faith; which is a privilege absolutely necessary; as those things are not which you specify (N. 96.) That, he should not only guard them from all errors, but guide them to all profitable Truths, such as the true senses of all Scripture would be and that he should the end them irresislibly from all vices, and infuse into them irresistibly all virtues. These things, I say are not necessary, as true Faith is necessary for constituting one a member of the Church; which hath been proved heretofore, 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 believe aright, without taking away their free will in believing and in prefessing their belief. For who sees not, but that by this means, you take away the infallibility of the Apostles, yea of our Saviour himself, whom you believe not to be God? Or else 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 yourself, or blaspheme against the infallibility of the Apostles, and certain truth of Christian Religion. 26. The Answer which you give (N. 97.) to the place, which Ch: Ma: (N. 18.) cited out of S. Austin, I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Church did move me, is easily confuted. That which moved the Saint, to believe the Gospel, was not the authority of any particular Church, but of the universal, which deserves as much credit, and is as infallible in one age, as in another. For, if the whole Church of this age could err, what Privilege of infallibility could we yield to the age before this (and so upward from one to another) more than to this present age? and so we could not ground any certainty, upon the Tradition of the whole Chur●● of all ages, upon which even yourself 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 Gospel, He (S. Austin) did well to conclude, that he had as much reason to disbetieve Mantchaeus, as to believe the Gospel's) overthrows the main ground of Protestants, that all things necessary to salvation, are contained in Scripture alone. For now it seems you admit a Tradition against the Doctrine of Manichaeus, distinct from that Tradition whereby the Church delivers the Gospel, and yet in this second Chapter (Pag: 114. N. 155.) You say, Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrine, having atte●●ation from Tradition truly univerfall, for this reason we conceive, as the Apostles persons, while they were living, were the only judges of Controversyes, so their writings, now they are dead, are the only Rule for us to judge them by. If being pressed, you tell us 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 error by Scripture alone, you manifestly contradict S. Austin (Cont: Ep: Fund: Chap: 5. cited by Charity Maintained N. 18.) I would not ●elieue the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Church did move me. Them therefore, whom I obeyed saying, believe the Gospel, why should I not obey, saying to me, do not believe Manichaeus? Where we see S. Austin professes to disbelieve the Doctrine of Manichaeus, upon the same Authority, for which he believed Scripture, which he professes to have been for the Authority of the Church (as you also pretend to receive the Scripture from the Church) and therefore both the Scripture, and Doctrine, or interpretation thereof, we must receive from the Church: Which appears more by the immediately following words of S. Austin alleged by Charity Maintained in the same (N. 18.) Choose what thou pleasest. If thou shalt say, believe the Catholics; They warn me not to give any credit to you. If therefore I believe them, I cannot believe thee. If thou say, do not believe the Catholics, thou shalt not do well, in forcing me to the Faith of Manichaeus, because by the preaching of Catholics I believed the Gospel itself. If thou say, you did well to believe them commending the Gospel, but you did not well to believe them discommending Manichaen● Dost thou think me so very foolish, that without any reason at all I should believe what thou wilt, and not believe, what thou wilt not? Thus far S. Austin. From whose words, Cha: Ma: makes this reflection: Do not Protestants perfectly resemble these men, to whom S. Austin spoke, when they would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture, but not to believe Her condemning Luther, and the rest? Against whom, when they first opposed themselves to the Roman Church, S. Austin may seem to have spoken no less prophetically, than doctrinally, when he said. (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 believe, that Christ commanded any good thing? Canst thou better declare to me, what he said, whom I would not have thought to have been, or to be, if the belief thereof had been recommended by thee to me? This therefore 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? Believe them, that we ought to believe Christ: But learn of us, what Christ said. Why I beseech thee? Surely if they were not at all, and could not teach me anything, I would more easily persuade myself, that I were not to believe Christ, than that I should learn any thing concerning him, from any other, than them by whom I believed him. If therefore, saith Cham Ma: we receive the knowledge of Christ, and Scripture from the Church, from her also must we take his Doctrine, and interpretation of Scripture. 27. The application of S. Austin's words in your (N. 99) to any particular Church, is impertinent, and doth not infringe the strength of S. Austin's Argument; who, as I have said, received the Gospel vpon the credit of the universal Church. and not vpon the Authority of any particular Church, or private person; and of the universal Church, he had all reason to say, that, as for her Authority he believed the Gospel, so for the same authority, he disbelieved the Doctrine of Manichaeus, which that universal Church condemned. But you equivocate when you do not distinguish between all the Churches of All Ages, and all the Churches, or universal Church, of every Age, which must be no less infallible, than all the Churches of all Ages, and is distinguished from every particular Church of every age; upon which mistake your whole objection goes (N. 99) about an Arian or a Grecian that they may pretend to make use of S. Austin's argument. But whereas you say, the ancient Goths or Wandals were converted to Christianity by the Arians, it is but to do a secret favour to the Arians your brethren. For the Goths were not converted by the Arians from Gentilism to Christianity, but being first converted, were afterward perverted by the Arians, as may be seen in Baronius (Ann: 370.) This answer confutes your passionate, bitter, declamation, vented in your (N. 101.) 28. Your (N. 100) demands, whether Charity Maintained be well in his wits, to say, that Protestants would have men be●eue the Roman Church delivering Scripture, whereas they accuse her to deliver many Books for Scripture, which are not so? And do not bid men to receive any Book which she delivers, for that reason because she delivers it. 29. Answer as above; that either you received the Scripture, upon the credit of the Roman Church, and such Churches as agreed with her, or else you received it merely upon your own fancy, admitting, and rejecting Books at your pleasure; and to this day you can have no certainty of the Bible, unless you receive it for that Reason, because the Church delivers it. And your admitting some Books, and rejecting others, which the Church receives, doth only prove that you are formal Heretics. 30. You say (N. 103.) As to be undersiandible is a condition requisite to a judge, so is not that alone sufficient to make a judge; otherwise you might make yourself judge of Controversyes. I wonder you would spend time in such toys. The main Question being, whether the Church, or Scripture be Judge, or Rule of Controversyes in Faith, Charity Maintained (N. 19) proves, that the Scripture cannot be such a Judge, because it is not intelligible to all, that is, to unlearned persons, as the Church is, and therefore infers, that, not the Scripture, but the Church, must be Judge. And is not that a good consequence? Besides, you say, that Charity Maintained in the beginning of his (N. 19) which you impugn, undertook only to prove, that, Scripture is not a Judge: Therefore you grant, that he proved all that he undertook in that place, though he added, by way of supererogation, that the Church must be that Judge; which was the chief thing he intended to prove in this Chapter, and which follows evidently of the Scriptures not being Judge, it being supposed, that either the Scripture, or Church must be. A grievous Crime in Charity Maintained to prove a pertinent, and most important Truth! 31. The words of the Apostle (Rom: 14.5.) Let every one abound in his own sense, are profanely applied by you, as if every one might follow his own sense, for the interpretation of Scripture, which delivers Divine Revelations, and you confess, that to disbelieve objects so revealed, is damnable in itself. S. Paul speaks of things indifferent, and which, at that time, were neither commanded, not absolutely forbidden to the Jews in the Old Law, which then was mortua, but not mortifera, dead, but not deadly. 32. Your (N. 104.) till the (N. 106.) inclusiuè, have been 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 Professors of the same doctrine, through all Ages, or else 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 affirm, that the Catholic Church of every Age, carries along with her, so many conspicuous Notes of the true Church, and all her enemies appear with so many Marks of Error, that no man, who seriously thinks of his Eternal Happiness, can choose, but clearly see the difference, and behold a way so clear, ita ut stulti non errent per eam. This answer is solid, and evident, for us. But you, who teach, that we receive Scripture from the universal Tradition of the 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 Book, and parcel of Scripture, hath been delivered by all Churches, even till you arrive to the Primitive Church, and by it include the Apostles? Wherein we may use these your own words (N. 108.) This trial of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity, which no unlearned can have, because he that hath it, cannot be unlearned. You say also; How shall he (an unlearned man) possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetual Succession of visible Professors, which held always the same doctrine which they now hold, without holding any thing to the contrary; unless 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 work, 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 understanding may judge. 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 unlearned can do, because he that can do it, cannot be unlearned? And so it seems, you will have unlearned men, despair of all means to find the true Faith, Church, and salvation. Will you have them pass, as it were persaltum, immediately from this present Age, to the first, or Primitive Age of the Church, without the help of writings, or other means of the middle Ages? What remedy therefore can there be to overcome these difficultyes, except an infallible belief, that the Universal Church of every Age cannot err? And that otherwise, all will be brought to uncertaintyes, every man of ordinary understanding may Judge. 32. For Answer to your (N. 110. till the 122.) inclusiuè, I say: No man endued with reason, will deny the use of Reason, even in matters belonging to Faith. But we deny, that Reason is not to yield, to Authority, when assisted by God's Grace, it hath once showed us some infallible Guide, and Authority, to which all must submit, and so as it were cease to be different particular men, and be in a manner, one understanding guided by one visible infallible Judge; for want whereof, Protestants remain irreconciliably divided, into as many opinions, as they are men of different understanding, and will, yea one man is divided from himself, as he altars his Opinions. Reason then may dispose, or manuduct us to Faith, but the Object into which Faith is resolved, is the Divine Revelation, at which, Reason did point, and to which it must submit: Otherwise Faith were but Opinion; which even Dr: Potter affirms 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 allege Scripture as you do; as if the places, which you allege (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 show yourself to have drunk, the very quintessence of Socinianism. 33. Charity Maintained had Reason to say (N. 29.) What good states men would they be, who should ideate, or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men have framed to themselves a Church? And (N. 22.) What confusion to the Church, what danger to the Commonwealth, this denial of the Authority of the Church may bring, I leave to the consideration of any judicious, indifferent man. For if it be free for every one, to think as he pleases, who will hinder him, from uttering his thoughts, in matters which he conceives belong to Faith, and to conform his practice to his thoughts, and words? And by that means sow discord in the Church, and sedition in the Commonwealth. And therefore what you say (N. 122.) that men only interpret for themselves, is not always true, but their selfe interpretation may indeed redound to the hurt of other, both Private and Public Persons, and Communityes, if their thoughts, chance to pitch upon some object, which may be cause of mischief. 34. Howsoever, (N. 118.) You seek to shift off the place of S. Austin, which Charity Maintained cited (N. 21.) You see that you go about to overtrow all Authority of Scripture, and that every man's mind may be to himself a rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every Scripture. (Lib: 32. cont: Faust:) Yet it is certain by Reason, and Experience of Protestants, and other, old, and modern Sectaryes, that to take away a Living Judge, is to make every man's mind a Rule, what he is to allow, or disallow in every Scripture. For the Circle, of which you speak here, and in many other places, I have showed heretofore at large, that no such thing can with any probability be objected against us, but most clearly, and unanswerably, against your Brethren. 35. It seems you were well furnished with idle time, when (N. 122. it should be 121.) you could at large examine, and seriously exagitate, these words of Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Pag: 66. N. 22.) Behold what goodly safe Propounders of Faith arise in place of God's universal visible Church, which must yield to a single Preacher; a neighbour; a man himself, if he can read, or at least have ears to hear 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 us to the Declaration, of a particular Preacher, of a Neighbour &c: Surely the Doctor having rejected the Pope and Church, should have proposed, some better and safer means, 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 upon such trifles. 36. Your (N. 123.) hath been answered already, and in your (N. 124.) you do not so much impugn Charity Maintained 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 judge in the jewish Church, endued with an absolutely infallible direction in cases of moment; as all Points belonging to Divine Faith are. The question than must be, not whether Dr: Potter spoke true, but whether Charity Maintained 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 certain Privilege from error, if he consulted the divine Oracle by the judgement of Vrim (or by the breastplate of judgement, wherein were Vrim and Thummim) whereby he had an absolutely infallible direction. Thus Herald And that you may see he speaks of such an infallibility, as He denies to the Pope, and Church; Mark his words immediately following: If any such promise from God to assist the Pope, could be produced, his decisions might then justly pass for Oracles, without examination; Till then, his words with us weigh so much as his reasons, no more Where you see, He grants to the high Priest, so great and so large, a Privilege, that if any such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced, his decisions might then justly pass for Oracles, without examination. Which is a large grant, and from which, every good Christian may well infer, that, if such an infallibility were granted to the high Priest, and Synagogue to the Jews, 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 jewish Church, when they should have received Christ for their Messiah, 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 prophesied, should be performed. Perpetuity was not promised to the Old Law, (of which it is said Ezech: 7.26. The Law shall perish from the Priest) but to the Church of Christ; of which it is said, the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. The Church is free, and signified by Sara, wife to Abraham; the Synagogue was signified by Agar the bond woman (Gal: 4.24.) Agar was sent away, and repudiated, not Sara. The Church is universal, 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 ulla salus. But divers 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 ceremonies and Sacraments of the Synagogue, are called weak and poor elements (Gal. 4.9.) But the Church of Christ is perfect, and the Sacraments of the New Law, not only signify, but give Grace. For which cause S. Austin (in Psalm: 73.) saith: The Sacraments of the new Testament give salvation; the Sacraments of the Old promised a Saviour. The Synagogue contained a shadow of good things to come, (Heb: 10.1.) The Church hath the light itself, that is Christ, (John: 1.9:) No wonder then, if the shadow fail, when the fullness of light appears; and no wonder, if our Saviour being present at the Council of the Jews, and having so preached the Gospel, that after some hours he said, Consummatum est, It is consummate: No wonder, I say, if the Jews might be permitted, at that time to err. S. Leo (Serm: 6. de Passion: saith) Tu verò, (he speaks to Caiphas) a quo jam alienabatur haec dignitas, ipse tibi es executor opprobrij, & ad manifestandum finem veteris instituti, pertinet eadem diruptio Sacerdotij. He speaks of Caiphas, tearing his garments. Contrarily you may remember, that the Priests, being consulted by Herod, about the Messiah, did give a true answer concerning him. Yet good Sir, you may reflect, that the Point for which the high Priest, directly, and immediately said, He hath blasphemed, was not because he then expressly pretended to be the Messiah, but because he made himself the Son of God; upon which, Caiphas did rend his garments, and afterward, they accused him before Pilate, because he made himself 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 consubstantial to the Eternal Father; and do they not in their Catechism 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 error, and blasphemy, and so by this example, you in particular, ought not to prove 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 literal sense, seeing all orthodox Believers understand it so, as indeed it is so to be understood. And in the mean time, are not you true blasphemers, by whose Doctrine, Caiphas may be excused from blasphemy? And (ò impiety!) our Saviour had blasphemed in making himself the Son of God, if your horrible Doctrine were true. 39 Secondly, you answer, that Dr. Potter night 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 certain privilege from error, whereby he had an absolutely infallible direction? Is not that to be not only obeyed, but of necessity believed, which proceeds from an absolutely infallible derection? Or how could the high Priests determination be of necessity obeyed, if his determination had been repugnant to any Point of Faith, as it might have 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 schism, falls to the ground. 40. Thirdly, you answer; It is one thing to say, that the living judge in the jewish Church, had an infallible direction: another, that he was necessitated to follow this direction. This is the Privilege which you challenge. But it is that, not this, which the Doctor attributes to the jews. 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 do otherwise. This Answer is no more solid, and no less repugnant to Dr. Potter, than the former. For he saith: If any such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced, his decisions might then justly pass for oracles, without examination. Now how could any man's decisions pass for oracles, if the promise from God to assist him, be not effectual, 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? Therefore the Doctor must be understood, of such an assistance, as it is certain, the party assisted will follow, which is the very Privilege, which, you say, we challenge, though we say not, that we are necessitated, as you misreport us; for we know very well, that there is a great difference, betwixt an absolute necessity, and infallibility of an effect, as I have declared heretofore. 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 concur with God's inspirations, and directions, or sufficient Grace. Yourself 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 think will say, that there was any certainty, that it should be kept whole inviolate by every man and every Church. Which words confirm my saying, that by your interpretation, the Doctor attributes no more to the high Priest, than to every man; which yet we have seen to be directly against his words, and meaning, and that he ascribes that to the high Priest, which he denies 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 pass 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 perform 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 gave them such direction, as in his infinite wisdom, 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 been versed in Divinity, or read and understood, our Catholic Authors upon the matter of Grace. 41. All that you have from the (N. 125. till 136.) inclusiuè, is answered already. Only I will say, that we do not prove the Church to be infallible, because so it seems to us most fit, as you do, who rely merely upon humane discourse; but seeing the Question between us, is, whether the Church, or Scripture alone, be the infallible Rule, or Judge of Faith, if we prove that the Church is useful for such a purpose, and that the Scripture alone cannot possibly be such a Rule, it follows, 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 divers numbers vanish into nothing. 42. In the end of your (N. 126.) you say that Charity Maintained inferred vainly that with months and years, as new Canonical Scriptures grew to be published, the Church altered Her Rule of Faith, and judge of Controversyes; which yet is a true consequence, if, as Charity Maintained expressly says as the Church by little and little 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 Books of Scripture were written, so she by degrees lost her infallibility, as being needless for those points which grew to be evidently declared by those Books? For which cause they teach that when the whole Scripture was written, the Church wholly lost infallibility; and here enters your conceit that to him to whom the way is clear, a guide is not necessary; Therefore the evidence of Scripture, made infallibility in the Church unnecessary. 43. In your (N. 137. 138.) you dissemble the force of Ch: Ma: his Argument, which is: the Church was once endued with infallibility; therefore you cannot affirm, that she lost it, without alleging some evident Text of Scripture for your assertion; which, with you who rely upon Scripture alone, aught to be a convincing Argument. Your fond instance about the King of Sweden, with the rest of that (N. 138.) hath been answered already. 44. I need say little to your (N. 139.140.) having confuted at large your distinction between being infallible in Fundamentals, and an infallible Guide in Fundamentals. And to your words (N. 140.) directed to Charity Maintained; For the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of infallibility, in some Points, and not in others, that is a wild notion of your own, which we have nothing to do with. I Answer: if you mean to defend the cause of Potter, or other Protestants, and not of Socininians only, you must of necessity have to do with that wild notion. For, seeing it must be granted, that before Scripture was written, the Church was infallible in all matters belonging to Faith both Fundamental, and not Fundamental (because otherwise we could not have believed Her in any one, and so there had been no means to attain a Divine infallible Faith) and that after the Canon of Scripture was persited, the Church remains infallible in Fundamental Articles, but may err in Points not Fundamental, (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 have an obligation to show by some evident Text of Scripture, that the Church, by the writing thereof, was deprived of infallibility in Points not Fundamental, and conserved with infallibility in Fundamental Articles; beside what I said even now, that according to your instance of a way, the Church should have been deprived of infallibility, when by writing of some Scriptures, some points were made clear in writing, which before were believed only for the Authority of a Guide, that is, the Church. And now, consider whether Charity Maintained may not say to you, as you with your wanted humility speak to him, jam dic Posthume de tribus capellis. 45. Your (N, 141.) hath been 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 Maintained; For particular rites, and ceremonies, and orders for government, our Saviour only hath left a general injunction by S. Paul, let all things be done decently and in order. But what order is fittest, i. e. what time, what Place, what Manner &c: is fittest, that he hathleft to the discretion of the Governors of the Church. But if you mean, that he hath only concerning matters of Faith, prescribed in General, that we are to hear the Church, and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to believe: The Church being nothing else 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 believe. Besides, it is so apparently false, that I wonder you could content yourself, or think we should be contented with a bare saying without any show or pretence of proof. 46. Answer. My hope was at the first general view of this section, to have answered it in very few words. But upon particular examination I find it to involve so many points of moment, that to unfold them, will require some little more time, and pains. First, you cite Ch: Ma. imperfectly. His words (Part: 1. P. 69. N. 23.) are; He (Dr. Potter) affirms, that the Jewish Synagogue retained infallibility in herself, notwithstanding the writing of the old Testament; and will he so unworthily and ●●justly deprive the Church of Christ of infallibility by reason of the New Testament? Expecially if we consider, that in the Old Testament, Laws, Ceremonies, Rites, Punishments, Judgements, Sacraments, Sacrifices &c: were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jews, than in the New Testament is done, our Saviour leaving the determination, or Declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church, which therefore stands in need of infallibility more than the Jewish Synagogue. To these words you say: I pray walk not thus in generality, but tell us, what particulars? And then you distinguish Rites, and Ceremonies, and Orders for Government, from matters of Faith; which indeed is no distinction, if the matter be duly considered. For, although divers Rites and Ceremonies, 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 sinful, or superstitious, and so infective of the whole Church, we need some infallible authority. And particularly this is true for the Hierarchy, or Government of the Church (as I said heretofore) which is a Fundamental point, if any can be Fundamental, to the constituting a Church. For this cause Charity Maintained expressly said, that our aviour left to his Church the determination, or declaration of particulars; but you thought fit to leave out the word declaration, whereas we cannot certainly rely upon the determination of any person, or community, without a power and infallibility to make a Declaration, that the thing determined or ordained is lawful: and so a Determination, or Ordination, must suppose, or imply in fact, a declaration. Do not you pretend to leave us for our superstitious Rites, and Ceremonies, because you could not in conscience conform yourselves to them? And here I may put the Reader in mind of the words which I cited above out of Moulin (Epist 3 to Dr. Andrew's) 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 understood, is answered, namely, that he understood all particulars, which occasion might require to be ordained, determined and declared, by the Church; but in the mean time, where, or when did Changed Ma: say, or dream, that which you say is apparently false, that our Saviour hath only concerning matters of Faith, prescribed in general, that ●●●re to hear the Church, and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to believe. Your conscience cannot but bear witness, against your own words, that Charity Maintained hath expressed a thousand times our doctrine, that we are bound to believe, whatsoever is sufficiently 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 believe every particular truth, contained in Scripture, or defined by the Church, which are millions: And therefore not the Doctrine of Charity Maintained, but your imputation is apparently false. Yet, to say the truth, that Doctrine which you say is apparently false, and no less falsely imputed to us, 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 seem to you a great subtlety. 47. The Church, say you, being nothing else but an aggregation of Believers, this in effect is to say, he hath left to all believers to determine what particulars they are to believe. To which I may answer, as you say to Charity Maintained. I wonder you would impugn that, as apparently false, which must be apparently true, if the ground of all your doctrine be true, That every man's Reason prescribes to himself, and determines what he is to believe; and so your kind of Church, being nothing but an aggregation of believers in that manner, it follows, that it is left to all Believers, to determine, what particulars they are to believe. The like may be said of the Council of Apostles, which consisted of the Apostles, who determined not only, what others, but what themselves were to believe, if they had not believed it already, (as de facto they did believe it before the Council) and so the Apostles had determined, what the Apostles were to believe. The same may be applied to General Counsels, who determine even what they themselves are to believe; and universally, if we do conceive any congregation, to be infallibly assisted by God, they may declare, what themselves, and others are to believe, though that congregation be nothing but an aggregation of such Believers. Yourself confess, that, the Governors of the Church may determine Rites, Ceremonies, &c: for the whole Congregation and so for themselves according to your inference; yea, if you understand the matter as you should, in determining Rites &c: they determine, what every one is not only to practise, but to believe also, as I said above; and so all believers may determine in this sense, what they are to believe. But the truth is, you err, 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, upon the whole collectiuè, compared with the whole, that is adequate with itself, 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 man's soul is distinguished, from a man. Besides, the precept of Faith, or Believing, is not a pure Ecclesiastical precept, but a Divine command, obliging All, and Every one, to believe whatsoever the Church propounds as revealed by God, which thereby 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 itself, by their own Authority, or command; yet God may, and doth, oblige, all, and every one, to believe, whatsoever is propounded as a Divine truth, by such an infallible Propounder, as the Church is, which, in that sense, may truly be said to determine what all are to believe. We may also add, that by the Church are understood the Pastors and Prelates thereof, who are not the whole Church collectiuè, but may command, and define, for the whole Church. last; what doth this your answer belong to the Point, of which Charity Maintained spoke? That, there is a greater necessity of some infallible authority, in the Church of Christ, than in the Synagogue of the Jews, because the Laws, Rites &c were more particularly, and, as I may say, minutely determined in the Old, then in the New, Law, which therefore stands in need of some Living Judge to determine, for all the many varieties, and different occasions, that may present themselves. 48. Your (N. 143.) is answered in three words, that when S. Paul, (1. Cor. 16.11.) said, All these things chanced to them in figure; Every body sees, that he meant not of the temporal, but of the Ecclesiastical or spiritual state of the Jews, and so if they had one high Priest, who was endued with infallibility, much more ought we to believe, that there is such an infallibility in God's Church: And the Reader, by comparing the words of Charity Maintained, with your Objection, will of himself see, that you labour to seek, but can find no matter against him. Neither did he ever say, that the Ecclesiastical Government of the Jews was a Pattern for the Ecclesiastical Government to christian's (as you would make him speak) 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 Pattern, expresses perfection, as being a Rule, model, and an idea of that, in respect whereof, it is a Pattern. 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 said; 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 immediately 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 shows 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 himself, and even against yourself. The words of the Saint (Lib: 3. Cap: 4.) are; What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures, ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition, which they delivered to those, to whom they committed the Churches? To which order many Nations yield assent, who believe in Christ, having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of God, without letters or ink, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition. It is easy to receive the truth from God's Church, seeing the Apostles have 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 have recourse to the most ancient Churches, and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question? These be the words of S. Irenaeus cited by Charity Maintained, which declare, that Tradition is sufficient, and powerful, to produce Faith, even with facility, (as S. Irenaeus expresses himself) though no Scripture had been written: And this he affirms, not by way of conjecture, or discourse, what God would have done, if there had been no Scriptures, but that, de facto, there was existent such a powerful Tradition, as to it not one, nor some, nor few, but many nations did yield assent without letters or ink, that is, without Scripture: And in this Chapter, (N. 159.) you say; Irenaeus tells us 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 infer, That a man may be saved, though he should not know, or not believe Scripture to be the word of God, if he believe Christian Religion, wholly and entirely, and live according to it. If this be true, doth it not follow, that Scripture alone is not the only, nor a necessary Rule of Faith, seeing by tradition alone, men may be saved, though they should not know, or not believe Scripture to be the word of God? And that by this concession, you directly blot out, the very title of this Chapter, which is, Scripture the only Rule whereby to judge of controversyes? 50. Now let us hear, what you can Object against Charity Maintained, in this matter. You say: (N. 144.) In saying, what if the Apostles had not left Scripture, ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition? And in saying, that to this order many Nations yield assent, who believe in Christ, having salvation written in their hearts, by the spirit of God, without letters or ink, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition; doth he (S. Irenaeus) not plainly show, that the Tradition he speaks of, is nothing else, but the very same that is written: Nothing but to believe in Christ? To which, whether Scripture alone, to them that believe it, be not a sufficient Guide, I leave to you to judge. 51. Answer: First, this your Answer, though it were never so true, leaves Charity Maintained in possession, of what he endeavoured to prove out of S. Irenaeus, against the Title of your Chapter (Scripture the only Rule whereby to judge of Controversyes) to wit, that Tradition, and therefore not only Scripture, is such a Rule. For, dato non concesso, that Scripture contains all Points necessary to be believed, it follows not that the Church also may not be infallible, and guide us by Tradition, as by God's unwritten Word. You teach here, (N. 126.) That, all the necessary Parts of the Gospel are contained in every one of the four Gospels; And yet you say, That they which had ●ll the Books of the New Testament, had nothing superfluous: For, it was not superfluous but profitable, that the same thing should be said divers times, and be testified by divers witnesses. So, say I, it had not been 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 have happened in the time of the Apostles; when the first Books of Scripture were Written. For, as Scripture was not superfluous, though it found another infallible Rule before it, which also even according to Protestants, remained for some time 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 speaks of, is nothing else, but the very same what is written; nothing but to believe in Christ; to which, whether Scripture alone, to them that believe it (you should add, and understand it) be not a sufficient Guide, I leave to you to judge: I must answer, as you (N. 142.) speak to Charity Maintained; I pray walk not thus in generality, but tell us, what you mean by believing? Only in general, that he is the Messiah, and that without believing him, none can be saved? Or else do you understand, by believing in Christ, all that hath been taught by him? If you mean the first only; you say nothing to the purpose; because other Articles, are necessarily to be believed, beside that of Christ's being the Messiah. If you mean the second; that is, all Points taught by our Saviour, and necessary to be believed, as you (N. 159.) say; S. Irenaeus tells us of some babarus Nations, that believed the Doctrine of Christ; (which certainly contains more than that one general Article of his being Messiah, as even there you declare, that it comprehends the Believing of Christian Religion, wholly and entirely; that is, (the matter of the Gospel) you know we deny, that for all such truths, Scripture alone can be a sufficient Guide, and to take the contrary without proof, is to beg the question. Nay, even for that of believing in Christ, I wonder you would say, that you leave it to the judgement of Charity Maintained, that Scripture alone is a sufficient Guide, (in the Principles, and proceed of Protestants) seeing you know that He knows, and the whole world knows, how vastly they disagree about believing in Christ, some believing him to be the Son of God, and Consubstantial to his Father: Others denying it: Some saying, he satisfied for our sins, others denying it, as you know the Socinians do. So that, take away the Authority and infallibility of God's Church, the agreement of Christians in believing in Christ, will terminate in the mere Name of Christ, and the Title of Saviour, with endless contentions, about the Thing signified by that Name, and Title. Put then all your Assertions together, 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 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 us the light of the Sun, we must have made use of candles and torches: If we had had no eyes, we must have felt out our way: If we had no legs, we must have used crutches. And doth not this in effect import, that while we have the Sun, we need no candles? While we have our eyes, we need not feel out our way? While we enjoy our legs, we need not crutches? And by like reason, Irenaeus in saying, if we had had no Scripture, we must have followed Tradition, and they that have none, do well to do so, doth he not plainly import, that to them that have Scripture, and belicue it, Tradition is unnecessary? Which could not be, if the Scripture did not contain evidently the whole Tradition. 54. Answer: You may understand the words of S. Irenaeus, and move others to vndestand them as you please; if you will first suppose, your own doctrine to be true, that is, if to beg the question, may pass 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 contains evidently all things necessary to salvation; you may compare it to the Sun, to Eyes, to legs; and the Church to Candles; to feeling out our way; to crutches; yea (if she might err,) to the Synagogue of Satan, and lastly to Nothing, because indeed every error in Faith, destroys Faith, and Church. But if you conceive as you ought, that the Church gives Being to the Scripture in order to us; that by Her Eyes, or Testimony, we believe Scripture to be the word of God, as yourself grant; that by Her subsistence, as I may say, it hath been 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 fail, 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. Austin. If through the difficulty and obscurity of Scripture we cannot feel out our way, (as the disagreements of Protestants show, they cannot) we may see by the eyes of the Church, by which we did first see Scripture itself, and then, do not the words of S. Irenaeus plainly import, the direct contrary of that which you infer? That to them who have Tradition (as all they must have, who believe Scripture, which we receive by Tradition) Scripture is unnecessary, (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 contain evidently the whole Tradition, as you infer, which is most evidently false, seeing S. John writes, that the world, could not contain all, that might have 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 itself. 55. And, now we have a clear Answer to your Objection out of S. Irenaeus, (as if he had taught that Scripture contains evidently the whole Tradition.) You cite not the place: But it is (Lib: 3. Cap: 1.) where he saith: We have received the disposition of our salvation from no others, but from them, by whom the Gospel came unto us. Which Gospel truly the Apostles first preached, and afterwards by the will of God, delivered in writing, to us, to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith. These words you allege, and in your margin 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 have preached nothing else beside that which they wrote: but only that they wrote the Gospel which they had preached before, which is true, and not against us. Now how can you impugn this Answer of Bellarmine, otherwise than by begging the question, and supposing, that the Evangelists, cannot be said to have Written the Gospel, unless they wrote all that the Apostlès preached? Which you know we deny, and the contrary is evident out of S. John, as I said even now, and heretofore proved at large: Though it be also most true, that they wrote all that was necessary to be written; but than you must prove, that all that was necessary to be believed, or was preached, was necessary to be written, (and not delivered by God's unwritten Word, or Tradition, as it was before any Scripture was extant) which you will never be able to prove 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 Discipulus &c: Mark the Disciple and interpreter of Peter did also deliver to us in writing those things which were preached by Peter, and Luke the follower of Paul set down in a Book the Gospel which was preached by him. (S. Paul.) And afterward John the Disciple of our Lord, and who leaned upon his breast, did also write the Gospel while he remained at Ephesus in Asia. Now it cannot be doubted, but that S. Mark had many things from the mouth of S. Peter, and S. Luke from S. Paul, which they did not set down in writing; and yet you see, it is said, he (S. Luke) wrote Evangelium, the Gospel; and for S. John, he professes, that our Saviour did innumerable things, which are not written, and yet it is said, edidi Evangelium, he set forth the Gospel, and the Apostles delivered interpretations of Scripture to the first Christians, which are not set down in writing, as yourself confess. If any say, S. Irenaeus calls Scripture the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith. I answer: Those words cannot be referred, Scriptures, to the Scriptures, (which is S. Irenaeus his word) but to the Gospel, as appears by the Word, futurum, (fundamentum & columnam Fidei nostrae futurum) seeing we cannot say, with congruity of Grammar, Scriptures futurum, and therefore it must be referred to Evangelium, Gospel, Evangelium columnam Fidei nostrae futurum, which (Gospel) is of a larger extent, than Scripture; though no man denies, Scripture to be, in a good sense, the Pillar and foundation of truth. Of the second answer which Bellar gives, I have spoken largely (Chap: 2.) and shown how egregiously you abuse him against his direct intention, meaning, and words. 56 Thus you have an answer to your (N. 145.) Where you say, that at the most we can infer from S. Irenaeus but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallble Guide, and that grounded upon a false supposition, in case, we had no Scripture, but an absolute necessity hereof, and to them who have and believe 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 said, S. Irenaeus speaks not by way of discourse, or conjecture, or as it were of prophecy, what God would have done, in case the Apostles had left no Scriptures, but he speaks of Tradition really existing, whereby the want of Scripture might have been supplied, and which he expressly saith, the Apostles delivered to those, to whom they committed the Churches; Yea, he affirms, 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 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 material Object of Faith, which all are bound to believe, which in effect is, as if it were not at all) the Church could not be to seek, whensoever the occasion might happen, but must be endued 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 suppositive, but an absolute necessity, that the Commonwealth be endued with an absolute constant power, to punish thiefs &c: Neither ought you to say absolutely, (for as much as belongs to our question) that it is a false supposition, to suppose that Scripture had not been written. For, (besides that the Church of Christ was in being, some years before any part of the New Testament was written) it is all one, that there be no Scripture, and that we have it not, or have no reason to believe it, yea or may reject it, as you say; seeing therefore, many Nations were saved, without knowledge of Scripture, or any obligation to know it, as S. Irenaeus supposes, it alone is, in order to use, and us, as if it had never been written; and so, as I said, infers an absolute, and not only a suppositive necessity of some Living Guide. And this, it seems, you did perceive, when you said, that Charity Maintained did not well, to infer an absolute necessity of a Living Guide, to them who have, and believe the Scripture: Whereby you must signify, that to those, who either have not Scripture, or have not sufficient reason to believe it, it is all one, as if Scripture had never been written, and consequently, that de facto there is an absolute necessity of an infallible Guide. Nay, men could not have had sufficient reason to believe infallibly the Scripture, except for the Authority of the Church of God, which therefore 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 upon a false supposition, in case we had no Scripture. For, contrarily, if we have and believe Scripture, we must first believe an infallible Church, independently of that supposition, and upon which that supposition of our believing Scripture must depend. 57 But it seems, this Authority of S. Irenaeus doth yet vex you. And therefore (N. 146. 147. 148.) you say: That in S. Irenaeus his time all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentals of Faith, which unity was a good assurance, that what they so agreed in, came from some one common fountain, and they had no other than of Apostolic Preaching. 58. This I have answered heretofore, and told you, that when the Fathers allege the Authority of the Church, or Tradition, they suppose the Church to be absolutely infallible, and not only, that accidentally, she teaches at that time the truth, which had been no proof, but a mere petitio principij. For, if the Church might err, as you say she hath done, the Heretics against whom the Fathers wrote, would easily have answered, that all Churches might err, and had erred, in such, or such particular Points; and how could you, or any Protestant, impugn such an Answer, supposing once the Church could err? When Luther appeared, he forsook the Faith, and Communion, of all Churches, upon pretence, that they all agreed in errors against Scripture; and how do you now tell us, that the agreement of Churches was a good assurance that what they so agreed in, came from some one common fountain, and they had no other but Apostolical Preaching. In this manner heretofore I retorted against you the saying, which you allege out of Tertullian, (Variasse debuerat &c: If the Churches had erred, they could not but have varied, but that which is one amongst so many, cannot be error, but Tradition:) That, seeing all Churches agreed in a belief contrary to the Faith of Protestants, we must affirm, that the thing which is one among so many, can not by error but Tradition. And your words here, add a particular strength to my retortions, while you say, that the agreement and unity of Churches about the Fundamentals of Faith, is a good assurance, that what they so agree in, comes from the common fountain of Apostolic Preaching. For, those Heretics might have answered, that the errors of the Church which they impugned, were not Fundamental (as we have proved, that you say the errors of the Roman Church, and such as agreed with Her when Luther appeared, were not Fundamental) and so the assurance, taken from unity in Fundamentals, 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 thereof, and they departed not from themselves, and then you cannot but see, that those Heretics in S. Irenaeus his time, might have said, all Churches are not at an agreement about matters of Faith, seeing we who are a part of the Church, do not agree with the rest; and therefore the agreement which you speak of, is of no force against us, but you must prove by some other kind of Argument, that our doctrines are false; just as Protestants answer us, when we object against them the agreement of all Churches against the doctrine of Luther, when he first appeared. Wherefore I must still infer, that it is not the actual, or accidental agreement, but the constant ground thereof (that is, the infallibility of the Church) that must assure us, what is Orthodox, and what is Heretical doctrine. Moreover, whereas you say, In S. Irenaeus his time all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentals of Faith: I beseech you, inform us, how it could be otherwise then; how can it be otherwise now; how shall it be otherwise for the time to come; or for any imaginable time, than that all Churches are at an agreement in Fundamentals of Faith? you profess through your whole Book, that if they fail in Fundamentals, they cease to be Churches; and so it is as necessary for all Churches to agree in Fundamentals, as for all men to agree in the essence of man: And you might as well have said, that at S. Irenaeus his time, the Definition did agree, or was all one with the Definitum, as that all Churches agreed in Fundamentals. If therefore it was easy to receive the truth from God's Church in S. Irenaeus his time, as he affirms, and you grant, it will be no less easy to do it in these our times, seeing the Church can never fail in Fundamental Points of Faith, and so it was easy for Luther, and his companions, to have received the truth, or rather to have retained the truths, they found in the Church, seeing she was a true Church, and consequently did not err in Fundamental Points. From whence it follows, that when S. Irenaeus saith, the Apostles have most fully deposited in the Church, as in a rich store-house, all things belonging to truth, it must be understood, that she cannot but keep that depositum sincere for Fundamental Points, even according to Protestants; and you say here (N. 164.) The visible Church shall always without fail propose so much of God's 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 therefore all that you have (N. 148.) is of no force, even in the Principles of Protestants. And then further, seeing indeed any error against divine Revelation, is damnable, and without Repentance destroys salvation, as you grant; it is impossible, that the Church (which must needs enjoy all things necessary to salvation, as we have heard you even now saying, the visible Church shall always without fail, propose so much of God's Revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven) It is, I say impossiblle, that the Church can fall into any damnable Error, but must be universally infallible. Which is unanswerably confirmed, by your doctrine, that it is impossible to know what Points in particular be Fundamental, and so we cannot know, that she fails not to propose so much of God's Revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven, unless we believe Her, to be infallible in all Points of Faith, as well not Fundamental, as Fundamental. And here again, how could you say, that in S. Irenaeus his time all the Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentals of Faith, which unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in, came from some one common fountain, and they had no other than Apostolic Preaching: How, I say, could you speak thus, your doctrine considered, that we cannot know what Points are Fundamental, and so we cannot know, whether Churches be at an agreement in them, and consequently, cannot, from such an agreement in Fundamentals, have a good assurance, that what they so agreed in, came from the fountain of Apostolic Preaching? Every where you are found clearly to contradict yourself. 59 In answer to your (N. 149.150.151.152.153.) I will first set down the words of Charity Maintained and then answer what you object. Thus saith Charity Maintained, (Part: 1. Pag: 71. N. 25.) The doctrine of Protestants is destructive of itself. For, either they have certain and infallible means not to err in interpreting Scripture, or they have not. If not; then the Scripture (to them) cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible Faith, nor a meet Judge of Controversyes. If they have certain infallible means, and so cannot err in their interterpretations of Scripture; then they are able with infallibility to hear, examine, and determine all Controversyes of Faith, and so they may be, and are, Judge's of Controversyes, although they use the Scripture as a Rule. And thus, against their own doctrine, they constitute another Judge of Controversyes, beside Scripture alone. 60. Against this discourse, you object with great pomp of words: If we (catholics) have certain, and infallible means, for the choice of the Church, than 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 judge of Controversyes, besides the Church alone; nay every one of us makes himself a chooser of his own Religion, and of his own sense of the Church's decrees, which very thing we so highly condemn in Protestants. 61. Answer. we have certain means to believe with an infallible Faith, that the Catholic Church is an infallible Judge of controversyes, as we have proved heretofore at large, in divers Occasions. But then to say, that by this means, i.e. by believing the Church to be the Judge of controversyes, we are able of ourselves, with infallibility to determine all controversyes, and do constitute another judge of controversyes, besides the Church alone. I am so far from understanding it that to me it seems no better than nonsense; as a man, who in some cause, makes choice of a judge, whom he believes to be just, wise, and in every respect fit for such an office, cannot be said to constitute another judge, beside him, of whom he makes choice, nor to make himself judge. Do you not teach, that the Church proposes to us Canonical Scripture, and that Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith, whereby all controversyes are determined? and yet you will not infer from thence, that the Church is a Rule of Faith, whereby 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 himself judge of controversyes we acknowledge and embrace it. We do make ourselves judges of controversyes. And this you must grant, not only for the choice of your Religion, but for the sense of Scripture, and consequently for determining all controversyes of Faith, and so you are judges of controversyes, as Ch: Ma: inferred; whereas Catholics in all controversyes, hold themselves obliged to follow the determination of the Church, and not of their own understanding, as you do. How far we may, and do make use of Reason in matters of Religion, we have declared above. And even yourself (Pag: 376. N. 56.) speaking of Scripture, say; Propose me any thing out of this Book, and require whether I believe it, or not, and seem 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 said so; therefore it is true. Which words, though they cannot be spoken sincerely, and with consequence, by you who resolve Faith into humane probable Arguments of reason; yet they show, that even in reason, Reason ought to submit to Authority. We have also showed, the difference between the Scripture, which is always the same, and the Decrees of the Church, which, in all occasions, can clearly declare Her meaning, if any difficulty occur, about her former Decrees, or Definitions. 62. But I pray, where did Charity Maintained frame this Argument, which you (N. 150.) term a transparent fallacy? Protestants have no means to interpret, without error, obscure and ambiguons places of Scripture; therefore plain 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 plain places, be not plain, to those, to whom they are plain; nor whether such plain places, may not be a sufficient ground of Faith, in respect of persons, to whom, and Matters, wherein, they are plain. The Point is, and you know it to be so, whether scripture be plain, in all Points necessary to be believed, which we deny, and you often affirm, but can never be able to prove; and I have demonstrated, that even those Texts, which you pretend to be most plain, and expressly allege for instances of such plainness, are not such, but contain difficulty, if we respect the sense, and not the bare words, which may be plain to Pagans, Jews, Turks, and to all who understand the language in which Scripture was written. And therefore you do not satisfy your own Demand, wherein you speak thus to Charity maintained. If you ask me, how I can be sure that I know the true meaning of these (plain) places? I ask you again, can you be sure, that you understand what I or any man else, says? They that heard our Saviour and the Apostles preach, could they have sufficient assurance, that they understood at any time, what they would have them do? If not, to what end did they hear them? If they could, why may not we be as well assured, that we understand sufficiently, what we conceive plain in their writings? 63. Answer. If he who speaks, be not sufficiently understood, he may be asked, and he who asks, may be satisfied, by a further declaration of the speaker, which holds not in Scripture, as I am forced often to repeat, Besides, when things are spoken, the present Time, Place, Argument, and other circumstances, may give much more light, than when they are barely written, devested of such helps. 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 breed a doubt, whether in other places it be not so taken; of which, no doubt would have been made, in case that in all places it had the same signification, Yea, we see, that the Apostles did not always understand our B. Saviour's words, till he vouchsafed to declare them. And I observe your own words; May we not be as well assured, that we understand sufficiently, what we conceive plain, in their (the Apostles) writings? Where insine, your certainty and evidence is resolved into (what we conceive) which are your own words; and is a poor ground, for an Act of infallible Faith; and, of Protestants disagreeing among themselves, doth not every one, conceive Scripture to be plain, in his favour? And yet it is plain, that two contradictoryes cannot be true. 64. In your (N. 152.) you speak to Charity Maintained in this manner: In saying, If they have certain means, and so cannot err, me thinks you forget yourself very much, and seem to make no difference, between having certain means to do a thing, and the actual doing of it. As if you should conclude, because all men have certain means of salvation, therefore all men certainly must be saved, and cannot do otherwise; as if whosoever had a horse, must presently get up and ride, whosoever had means to find out a way, could not neglect those means, and so mistake it. If you ask, seeing we may possibly err, bow can we be assured we do not? I ask you again, seeing your eyesight may deceive you, how can you be sure you see the sun, when you see it? perhaps you may be in a dream, and perhaps you, and all the men in the world have been so, when they thought they were a wake, and then only awake, when they thought they dreamt. 65. Answer: I ask, whether all points necessary to be be believed, are so very evident in Scripture, that one cannot err in the meaning of them, but is no less assured thereof, than he is sure he sees the Sun, when he sees it; Or, they are not so evident? If they be so evident, it follows clearly, that the means whereby they are immediately known (namely the very evidence of them) is such, as no man can possibly err concerning them. For, it is impossible, that our understanding can descent, from a truth, represented with evidence. And so you have no reason to blame Ch. Ma., seeing by the means whereby you understand necessary Points of Faith in Scripture, it is impossible for you to err. If necessary Points be not so evident, but that one may err concerning them; Then you must use some means, for understanding them, beside the pretended evidence, which they have of themselves, which indeed comes to be, not evidence, but obscurity, if it leave the understanding, with a freedom to descent. Let therefore these means be such, as Protestants are wont to assign; prayer, knowledge in languages, conferring one place with another etc. Which depending upon humane industry, cannot exceed probability, (as we have heard Whitaker de Eccles: contr. 2. Quest: 4. confessing) and cannot assure us of the true sense of Scripture; which is against your sayings (N. 150.) That you have certain means of not erring in and about the sense of those places, which are so plain and clear, that they need no interpretation, and in such we say our Faith is contained. For, if to understand such places you need the means and help of Prayer, Language &c: it is clear, they are not so clear, that they need no interpretation. And so you must be content to acknowledge, in these two numbers, a contradiction to yourself, and a causeless blaming Charity Maintained in the former of them, if yourself speak Truth in the latter; that is, you must either grant that one cannot err in necessary Points of Faith, or else that the Scripture is not evident, but needs an interpreter of Scripture for such Points; which if it need, seeing the means assigned by Protestants, can afford no more than probability only, which is not sufficient to erect an act of divine Faith, it follows that we must have recourse to an infallible Living Guide. Thus I have confuted your objection against Charity Maintained; That He seems to make no difference, between having certain means to do a thing, and the Actual doing of it. For, I have told you, that when the means to do a thing, is seated in some cause, which hath not freedom to the contrary Action, there is good reason, not to distinguish between the enjoining such means, 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 burn a combustible matter, it cannot but do so. Now our understanding is of that nature, that it cannot descent, from a truth evidently proposed for such; and therefore 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 understanding, cannot possibly descent from them, and so not to err, and not to be able to err, prove to be inseparable: which holds particularly, in your doctrine that certainty cannot consist without evidence, and consequently our vnderstanding cannot descent from any thing which is presented to it as certain, because it cannot descent, or deny, that which to it is evident. 66. Your instances to the contrary, prove only, that either you did not consider, what you object; or argue an excessive 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 have certain means of salvation, therefore all men must certainly be saved and cannot do otherwise, as if whosoever had ahorse must presently get up and ride: whosoever had means to find out a way could not neglect those means and so mistake it. But all these toys are answered already. For, the means to heaven, is, as our B. Saviour says, to keep the commandments, by our freewill, assisted with God's Grace, and therefore it doth not follow, that, although we may, we must needs be saved, because our will may resist God's Grace; as also it is in your will not to get up and ride, though you have a horse: but it is not in the power of our understanding, to descent 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 certain that it is the way. In which case, he cannot mistake his way, though by his freewill he may go out of it; as one may, with his will not observe what God commands, but cannot possibly persuade himself that it is not commanded, if it be evidently represented to his understanding, that it is commanded: as one cannot but be sure, that he sees the sun, when he sees it; which is your own example, to prove, that we may be assured that we do not err: But than you do not well to say, that our eye sight may deceive us, or that we may possibly err; it being impossible, that our eye, and understanding, being well disposed, towards an object evident, can fail to see, and understand actually, if such an object, be placed within the sphere, or compass, of their actuity: And therefore, if Scripture be evident whosoever can assent to it, cannot possibly descent from it. Before I end this number, you must be entreated 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 certain, as to necessitate our understanding to an Assent, that so there might be some obedience in it, which can hardly have place where there is no possibility of disobedience, as there is not where the understanding does all, and the will nothing. Now, if the understanding be not necessitated, by the evidence of Faith, or contents of Scripture; you must find some other means, to move the understanding, namely, such as Protestants usually prescribe, which cannot exceed probability, nor is sufficient for an Act of Faith. And so your Arguments, and Similitudes, grounded upon the plain evidence of Scripture, cannot be rightly applied by you, seeing it is not an evidence, sufficient to assure the understanding, without some other means, which being but probable, if you will arrive to certainty, you must still have recourse to the Church. 67. Your (N. 151.) going upon a false supposition, that our first Proofs, and Arguments, for the infallibility of the Church, are taken from Scripture, need no Answer, seeing we have proved the contrary, at large. It is true, that having once found the true Church, and by Her authority, Canonical Scriptures, we do with good reason, prove out of them the authority, and infallibility of the same Church; with other particulars concerning her, which were not known by the first general notion of her being the true Church; but this is done without any pretence, of such evidence as must force every man's understanding to assent, in that manner as the Principles of natural Sciences, do necessitate us; and therefore, there always remains a necessity of a Living Judge. 68 In your (N. 154.) I find nothing, but an Aggregatum of divers Heads, of which we have treated at large; as the infallibillty of Christian Faith; how far the Motives or arguments of credibility, concur to an act of Faith; The manner we hold in proving the Church, and believing those articles which she proposes; what use there is of Reason in finding out the Church; that in vain you distinguish between Christianity, and Popery, as you speak, seeing there can be but one true Christian Church &c: And therefore, I will go forward, having first touched in a word, that whereas you say to us, you should require only a moral and modest Assent to the proposals of the Church, and not a Divine as you call it, and infallible Faith: It seems you confess, that your Faith is not to be called Divine, as you profess it not to be infallible, and therefore indeed not Divine, but a mere humane persuasion, even in those Points, wherein you chance notto err. 69. To your (N. 155.156.157.158.159.160. of which for the substance I have spoken heretofore) I will only say; That you are still taking upon you, to declare the Doctrine of Protestants, in their name, without any commission from them. Thus here you talk, as if no Protestants held, that Scripture may be proved, to be the word of God, by Scripture itself, the contrary whereof we have showed, in particular of Baron, and Potter. And Ch. Ma. (Part: 2. Chap: 3. Pag: 91.) citys Dr. Willet (in his meditation upon the 122. Psalm Pag: 91.) who puts among whirle-points and buboles of new Doctrine (as he speaks) That the word of God cannot possibly assure us what is the word of God. And whatsoever you take upon you, yet Ch. Ma. had reason to say, that seeing it is, to Protestants, a most necessary Point of Faith, to know what Books be Scripture, and that this Point cannot be proved by Scripture; it follows, that all matters of Faith, are not contained in Scripture: whereby it appears, that God hath not tied his testimony or Revelation, to his written word alone, but that you must of necessity admit Tradition, or His unwritten Word, and so not learn all necessary Points from Scripture. And if one Tradition must be believed by Faith, you can bring no positive 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 impugn these words of Charity Maintained (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 Fundamental Point of Faith; then as he teacheth, that the universal Church may err in Points not Fundamental, so I hope he will not deny, but particular Churches and private men, are much more obnoxious to error in such Points; and in particular in this, that the Scripture alone is judge of Controversyes: And so the very Principle upon which their whole Faith is grounded, remains to them uncertain; and on the other side, for the self same reason, they are not certain, but that the Church is judge of Controversyes. Against which discourse you object; A pretty Sophism depending upon this Principle, that whosoever possibly may err, he cannot be certain, that he doth not err. And upon this ground what will hinder me from concluding, that seeing you also hold, that neither particular Churches, nor private men are infallible even in Fundamentals, that even the Fundamentals of Christianity, remain to you uncertain? A judge may possibly err in judgement, can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right? A traveller may possibly mistake his way, must I therefore be doubtful whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber? Or can our London Carrier have 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 own as an egg to an egg, or milk to milk. 71. Answer. I hope it will be found that you triumph before any possibility of victory, on your behalf, and that your Objection will be turned against yourself. Where find you in Charity Maintained any Argument depending upon this principle, that whosoever possibly may err, he cannot be certain, that he does not err? This is your fiction, not any principle of Ch. Ma. His principle is in this. Whosoever possibly may err, by relying upon some Principle, Ground, or Reason, he cannot be certain, that he doth not err, as long as he follows that Principle only, without addition of any other help, or greater light, or certainty. For, if the Principle be of itself false, fallible, or contingent, it cannot possibly, being left to itself, 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 absolutely whosoever may possibly err, he cannot be certain, that he doth not err: unless you add this necessary restriction; he cannot be certain that he doth not err, as long as he grounds himself, only upon that Principle, which he believes to be fallible, and subject to error, though for other things, or upon other certain and infallible Grounds, he may be, and is, sure, that he neither doth, nor can err, while he relies upon those infallible Grounds. 72. For better understanding of this matter: We may distinguish a double infallibility. The one may be termed Personal, or belonging to, or accompanying the Person: The other we may call Real, or taken from the thing itself. If God promise his assistance to some person, that he shall never err, even in things of themselves obscure; this man shall be sure never to err; not in virtue of any intrinsecall evident Principle, but by reason of that Divine assistance. But if one have no such promise, or Privilege, yet is directed by some Principle, evident to humane Reason, he is certain, that he neither doth, nor can, err, by a certainty, derived from evidence of the Thing itself, as long as he relies upon that certain ground. Now to our purpose. You cannot be certain of this proposition (Scripture alone is the total Rule of Faith) by evidence of sense, or some Principle known to natural Reason, but only by certainty, proceeding from infallible supernatural Assistance: And therefore, seeing you deny any such Assistance to the universal Church, and much more to particular Churches, or private persons, for Points not Fundamental (as you acknowledge this to be) it follows, that you can have no certainty of it; which is the thing that Charity Maintained affirmed: and so it proves to be very true, that whosoever may err, cannot be certain that he doth not err, if he depend, upon Grounds, subject to falsehood, and error; as contrarily, whosoever doth not err, because he relies upon evident Principles, or upon some extrinsecall Authority, being in itself, and being believed to be, Infallible, he is sure he cannot err in such matters, though he may err in other, known by some probable reason, or fallible Authority. If you say; A thing may be certainly known, or believed, because it is evidently contained in Scripture, which we believe 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 Grammatical signification of the word; than whosoever does so, he is certain, not only that he doth not, but that he cannot err, seeing he is evidently certain, that he sees, reads, and understands the Grammatical signification of the word. If beside the said knowledge, or ability to see, read etc. there be other means required (as certainly there are) to know what is (not the Grammatical signification, but) the meaning of the word, intended by the Holy Ghost, in that place; then if those means be fallible, and only probable, no man can, by the assistance of them alone, be certain, that he doth not err. But if the means be, and be believed to be infallible, he is sure, that he neither doth, nor can err, by using those means; and so to err in a way (in which one is certain, that he doth not err, and yet may err, as long as he retains the means of that Certainty, and follows them) is an impossible thing. Thus your own Objection turns upon yourself, and makes good the discourse of Charity Maintained. 73. But you urge us, and say: Upon this Ground, what will hinder me from concluding, that seeing you also hold, that neither particular Churches, nor private men are in fallible, even in Fundamentals, that even the Fundamentals of Christianity, remain to you uncertain. 74. Answer. Your inference were very good, if in the belief of the Fundamentals of Christianity, we did rely upon the Authority of particular Churches, or private men. But we rely upon the Authority of the universal Church, which is absolutely infallible. Contrarily, for you, who rely upon no infallible Authority, of any Church, but upon your own fallible discourse, or the Scripture interpreted by fallible means, nothing, I am sure, can hinder us from concluding, that even the Fundamentals of Christianity remain to you uncertain. Still you are wounded with your own weapons. And to turn also against you your own similitudes: A Judge may possibly err in judgement, if he proceed only upon probable reasons, that he Judges according to Law; neither can he have assurance that he hath judged right, if his sentence be grounded upon such reasons only. If in some other case he have assurance, that he hath judged right, it must be grounded upon certain, and evident reasons, which can never fail, nor he ever can fall into error, by following such reasons, or rules. Neither can your London Carrier, or any other, in the middle of the day, when he is sober and in his wits, mistake the way, which he knows with absolute certainty and evidence; as you above all others must grant, who say, that we need no Guide for Controversyes of Faith, because, as you pretend, you have a clear way, namely Scripture, which therefore if you can mistake, and know the meaning thereof only probably, you must confess the necessity of some Guide, to direct, and keep you in that way. Your own caution (in the middle of the day) might have put you in mind, that Faith is obscure, and like a light in a dark place, as S. Peter speaks; which therefore is a way, which may not only be mistaken, but cannot be assuredly found, without the direction of some infallible Guide. How many ways, do your Arguments strongly recoil against yourself, without the least hurt to your Adversary! Even your vain conclusion (these you see are right worthy consequences, and yet they are as like your own as an egg to an egg, or milk to milk) must be applied against yourself, that as one egg is really different from another, so your consequences are really different from those of Charity Maintained, though to your friends they may perhaps have seemed to be all one: But indeed, being examined, prove to be as like to those of Charity Maintained, as an apple to an oyster. 75. By what I have said, your (N. 161.) is fully answered, and your Examples appear to be clearly impertinent. For, these Propositions, the snow 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 total Rule of Faith, the truth, or falsehood whereof, must be tried by some other means, and you can have none certain, if you take away the infallibility of God's Church. And I wonder you can say, concerning these words of Charity Maintain. (for the self same reason Protestants are not certain that the Church is not Judge of Controversyes) the Ground of this Sophism is very like the former; viz: That we can be certain of the fallhood of no Propositions, but these only which are damnable Errors. For, you know, that we spoke not of whatsoever truth, or falsehood, but of a Proposition, the truth or falsehood whereof, cannot be known, by sense, or natural Reason, but only by Revelation, in which if the universal Church may err, for Points not Fundamental, we cannot possibly have certainty of the truth of them, as I have proved; and it is intolerable in you to make this Argument, we may be certain that snow is not black, nor fire cold; therefore we may be certain of truths, which can be known only by Revelation, for Points in which you say the whole Church of Christ, and much more private men, may err. 76. To your (N. 162.) I need only say, that a public and universal Authority to decide Controversyes of Faith, and interpret Scriptures must be infallible; otherwise it might either be disobeyed, or else men would be forced to obey exteriorly, that which they judge in Conscience to be a damnable Error, as heretofore I have declared, and shown a large difference between a Judge in Civil causes, and Controversyes in matters of Faith, alleging to that purpose, your own words (Pag: 59 N. 17.) That in Matters of Religion, such a judge is required, whom we should be obliged to believe, to have judged right. So that in Civil Controversyes, every honest understanding man is fit to be a judge; but in Religion, none but he that is infallible. And yet so fare you forget yourself as to object to us in this (N. 162.) I hope you will not deny, but that the judges have Authority to determine criminal and Civil 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 between a Judge in Civil, and a Judge, in Controversyes of Religion, unless you grant not only a conditional, but an absolute infallibility to this latter, whereby he is sure never to err, whereas a Judge in Civil matters may err, by not proceeding according to Law? If therefore the Propositions, which were publicly defended in Oxford, (that the Church hath Authority to determine Controversyes in Faith, and to interpret Scripture) be patiented of your Explication, I can only say, that they either say nothing, or teach men to dissemble in matters of Faith, by obeying the Commandments of the Church, against their Conscience. I have read your friend Irenaeus Philalethes (Dissertatione de Pace Ecclesiae) who teaches, that no man ought now, after the time of the Apostles, who were infallible, to be punished by Excommunication, as long as he follows the dictamen of his Conscience; and how do you tell us, that now one may be excommunicated for an error in Faith? Though you admit no infallible Judge, to declare the sense of Scripture; and that those Texts which seem evident to some, appear obscure to others, as is manifest, in the examples which you allege as evident, of our Saviour's Passion, and Resurrection, which divers Heretics have either denied, or understood in a different way from the doctrine of God's Church; and yourself in particular, believe 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 remains in Heaven, with a Body of a different nature, and Essence, from that which he had upon Earth; which is to deny his Resurrection, for substance, and Death, for the fruit thereof. You say; The Doctor (who defended the said 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 universal Tradition, and infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule. But how doth this agree, with the whole Scope of your Book, that the Bible, the Bible, the Bible, is the only Rule; and with your express words here, (N. 155.) that no unwritten Doctrine hath attestatten from Tradition truly universal? , beside Scripture, you grant a Tradition, which you say gives an infallibility, to him who proceeds according to it: Which shows that there is some infallible unwritten word, or Tradition. You say: But what now if I should tell you, that in the year 1632. among public Conclusions defended in Douai, one was, that, God predeterminates men to All their Actions. I answer: That, if you will infer 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 Schools, with an express command of our Supreme Pastor, that one part do not censure another; so if you grant, that, out of the said Propositions defended in Oxford, I may infer, that the Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith, or at least, that you are not certain it is so, nor can condemn us Catholics for holding the contrary; if, I say, you grant this, you overthrew that Ground, in which alone, all Protestants pretend to agree, and of which if they be not absolutely certain, the whole structure of their Faith must be ruinous. You overlash in supposing, we say, that the Church cannot err, whether she use means or no. But we are sure, that as the Holy Ghost promised Her the End, of not erring, so also he will not fail, to move Her essectually to use such means, as shall be needful for that End. Your (N. 163.) about a place of S. Austin, I have answered very largely heretofore 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 Greek Church as well as Roman? There being not one Note of your Church, which agrees not to Her as well as to your own, 78. Answer. If you speak of the true Church of Christ in Greece, she is so far 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 itself, and brought up in Catholic Countries. The schismatical Grecians, to their division from the Roman Church, have added Heresy, as even Protestants confess, and so are neither the whole Church, nor any Church, at all; it being indeed, no less than a kind of blasphemy, to affirm, that, Conventicles of Heretics, can be the true Church of Christ Dr: Lawde (Pag: 24.) saith of the Error of the Grecians; I know and acknowledge, that Error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, to be a grievous error in Divinity. And, (Pag: 154.) I would feign know, what Article of the Faith doth more concern all Christians in general, than that of Filioque? Which Error of the Grecians, hath been condemned by three General Counsels, in which the Grecians were present, and to which they gave consent; namely, the Council of Lateran under Innoc: 3. Anno 1215. The Council of Lions under Gregory the 10. Anno 1273. The Council of Florence Anno 1438. And you must consider, that the Grecians hold General Counsels, to be Rules of Faith. Of this matter, Brierly (Tract: 1. Sect: 7. Subdiv: 2. Marg: 11. Pag: 202.) speaks very well, and shows, even out of Protestant Writers, the beginning of the Errors of the Grecians, and their defections from the Roman Church, and in particular saith, that, twelve times, or thereabout, hath the Greek Church reconciled itself to Rome, and afterwards fallen from thence, being the rupon now at last wholly oppressed with barbarous Turkism. And here I may well allege the saying of S. Antonin: (Part: 4. Tit: 11. Cap: 7.) that since the Grecians divided themselves from us, they do daily more and more fail in Wisdom, in temporal power, in good life, neither hath any of them wrought miracles. And yet, notwithstanding all this, even the Schismatical Grecians, do agree with Catholics, almost in all the Points, in which the Protestants disagree from us, as Brierly in the same place, demonstrates, out of Protestant Authors: And the same is set down in Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chap: 5. N. 48.) citing in particular Potter, who (Pag: 225.) denies not but they believe Transubstantiation. By all which it appears, that of the Greek Schismatical Church, you say to us against truth all, that there is not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own: by the novelty of Her Errors, her Alterations, Contradictions, and Heresy, she must want Antiquity, Unity, Perpetuity, Universality for time, and place, as is obvious to every one to Judge, by what we have said. 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 have lately heard you say (N. 152.) Perhaps you may be in a dream; and perhaps you and all the men in the world have been so, when they thought they were awake, and then only awake, when they thought they dreamt. Which it seems, proves to be your own case; who pretend to be awake, and yet dream, of men in the Moon, agreeing with Luther, when he first arose, which either is a dream, or all those learned Protestants who are cited by Charity Maintained (Part: 1. Chap: 5. N. 9 and N. 12.) were in a dream. As he who said, It is impudence to say, that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the doctrine of the Gospel. (And I may say, that far greater impudence it were to affirm, that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe, and other Christian Catholic natious, and consequently, that it is the greatest impudence to deny, that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholic Church spread over the whole world) As he who affirmeth it to be ridiculous to think, that in the time before Luther, any had the purity of Doctrine; as he who said, if there had been right believers which went before Luther in his office, there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation; as he who saith, The Truth was unknown at that time, and unheard of, when Martin Luther, and Vldericke Zuinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel; As he who saith: We say, that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy overspred● the whole face of the earth; As he, who teacheth, that from the year of Christ three hundred and sixteen, the AntiChristian and Papistical Reign had begun, reigning universally, and without any debateable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty years. (that is, till Luther's time;) As he who affirms, th● it the true Church was interrupted by apostasy from the true Faith; As Calvin, who saith of Protestants in general; we have been 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 seen in the now cited place of Charity maintained, with more other speaking to the same purpose. With what modesty then can 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 wherein he opposed Her, were not matters of Faith; this interpretation, will serve only, to make good that Luther was inexcusable, in dividing himself from the whole Church, for matters not belonging to Faith. CHAP: XII. THE ANSWER TO HIS THIRD CHAPTER ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL AND NOT FUNDAMENTAL POINTS. 1. WHosoever peruses the Third Chapter of Ch: Ma: and considers unpartially, with what clearness and method 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, unlearned subtiltyes, and by Points, as if your chief care had been to divert, or as I may say, hood wink the Reader, for the main Controversy, by petty diversions. In proof of what I say, I beseech the Reader to run over the first five numbers, or Sections of Ch. ma. and he will find I do you no wrong. 2. I wonder, you will always be taking pleasure in toys and untruths. First: (N. 4.) you affirm, that if we say we agree in matters of Faith it is ridiculous, and that we define matters of Faith to be those wherein we agree. So that, to say, you agree in matters of Faith, is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree. And then (N. 5.) That we are all agreed that only those things wherein we do agree, are matters of faith; which you put in a distinct letter as out Doctrine, and then add these words of your own: And Protestants, if they were wise, Can do so to●; whereas you know it to be both ridiculous, and untrue, that we have 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 dependence of any man's agreeing, or disagreeing in them; though it be true, that by consequence, whosoever agrees in such truths, must agree among themselves, for those truths; as, proportionably, Quae sunt eadem uni tertio, sunteadem interse. And, our deduction is this; Whosoever agree in the belief of all things revealed by God, agree in all matters of Faith: Catholics agree in the belief of all things revealed by God: Therefore they agree in all matters of Faith. But we are not so foolish, as to say, that if a Catholic should inculpably deny a thing revealed by God, and so disagree from other Catholics, that therefore 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 believe all plain Texts thereof, are true Protestants, and do agree in matters of Faith, and therefore must agree among themselves in such Points. Now I ask, whether you will define matters of Faith to be those wherein Protestants agree? If you say, yes; then I take your own words, and say; this is ridiculous, and as if we should say, Protestants agree in those things wherein 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 believe them; than you both answer, and confute your own Objection, and turn it against yourself. You say, it is ridiculous to say, we agree in matters of Faith, and are all agreed that only those things wherein 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 wholesome advice, 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 wherein they do agree: which is the thing you object against us. Nevertheless, I know not well by what Logic you will infer, that we speak, as if one would say, we agree in those things wherein we agree; unless perhaps, by some such wild Syllogism as this: All matters of Faith are those wherein we agree; but we agree in all matters of Faith; Therefore we agree in all those things wherein we agree: as if you say; every man is a reasonable creature but every reasonable creature is a man; Therefore every man is a man. 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 etc. Therefore the belief of the Trinity etc. is a matter of Faith. But howsoever this be; we utterly deny that definition of Faith, and leave it to Protestants, that they may be wise according to the wisdom of your advice, and definition. 3. To the rest of this (N. 5.) as also to your (N. 6.) I answer, that you would gladly divert us to particular disputes: But it is sufficient to say in general, That whatsoever is known 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 Work; to dispute in what subject infallibility resides. Let me now tell you, that which may suffice for the present, that, those three means of agreement, which you mention, (the Pope; A Council with him; The universal Church) have never yet, nor ever shall, nor ever can be found, to disagree. And it is no fair dealing in you, to omit, what Ch: ma: hath concerning this matter (Part: 2. Chapt: 5. N. 15. and 16.) where he answers the objection, and discovers the falsifications of Potter, in citing Catholic Authors, about this point. But to prove that the universal Church cannot be infallible, or a means 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 receive not the decree, therefore the whole Church hath not received it. Answer. I know no man hath greater obligation, to answer your Objection, than yourself; who teach, that by universal 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 receive not such, or such Scriptures, therefore the whole Church (or universal 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 aught to prevail against the contrary suffrages, as you speak (Pag: 68 N. 43.) I answer; First, that if the Church be fallible, it is not the number, but the weight of reason, which ought to prevail. And secondly; you cannot but see, how easy it is for us, 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, unless you help it out with your wont 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 Heretics, and cease to be members of the Church, nor can pretend that they are part of the Church and they receive not the decree: Therefore the whole Church hath not received it: As I said above, that Schismatics cannot pretend to be members of the Church, after their separation. And this your subtlety is directly against Dr. Potter (Pag: 57) saying. Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholic Verity maintained by this Church (or the Catholic visible Church) as do Heretics, or perversely drvides himself from the Catholic Communion, is do Schismatics: the condition of both is damnable. The Scriptures and Fathers cited here by the Mistaker, prove this, and no more: and therefore prone nothing against Protestants, who never denied it. Now why do you not ask your client, Potter? How any man can oppose the whole Church, or departed from Her Communion, seeing they who oppose and departed, may pretend, that they are part of the Church, and do not oppose, or departed from themselves: and therefore Protestants, who the Doctor saith, never denied it, must deny it, if they will believe you; or you must deny yourself, if you will believe them. Your (N. 7.8.) are mere words without any proof, and deserve no other Answer. 4. Your whole (N. 9) is plainly impertinent, Charity Maintained, (Part: 1. Chap: 3. N. 1.) declared, how Protestants are wont to abuse the distinction of Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental, to many purposes of theirs; and among the rest, to this: That, if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of Faith, without any means of agreement, they instantly tell you, they differ in points not Fundamental. In which words, it is clear, that Ch. Ma. intends only to show, what use Protestants make of the said distinction; and that he speaks 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 do not so, (that is whether they differ in points only not Fundamental, or do nor differ in them) If they do so, I hope you will not find fault with the Answer. But your hope in this, is presumption. For, although it were granted, (which yet is very false) that they differ only in Points not Fundamental; yet I have reason to find fault with the answer, because they give it, to show that notwithstanding their disagreement in Points not Fundamental, yet they are Brethren, and may all be in state of salvation; which to affirm, is both very false, and very pernicious: seeing that error in any Point revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed for such, is damnable, and excludes salvation, even according to your own doctrine; and therefore this Answer doth not free them, from what Charity maintained objected, that they abuse this distinction: and to this you should have answered, without declining it, by impertinent diversions, and demands. The other part of your Dilemma is this: If you say they do not so, (that is, differ, not only in not Fundamentals) but in Points Fundamental also; then they are not members of the same Church one with another, no more than with you: And therefore 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? Thus you; still flying a direct answerto Ch. Ma., and yet granting perforce all that he desires. If, say you, Protestants differ in Points Fundamental, than they are not members of the same Church one with another: And then, say I, they perniciously abuse people, with this distinction, to persuade them the direct contrary of that, which even yourself here infer: to persuade 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 Fundamental. And this is that to which you should have answered, whether they do not abuse this distinction, and either have 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 Fundamentals, they are not members of the same Church one with another, no more than with us Catholics. If this beso; the more unreasonable, inconsequent, and are they, in pretending to be Brethren one to another, and yet enemies to us: whereby you do still more and more make good, that they abuse this distinction, in pretending to be Brethren one to another, and not to us; especially if we call to mind, that many of their chiefest learned men, in divers most important matters, agree with us▪ against other Protestants, and yet they must be Brethren, and we enemies, even in those very Points in which they agree with us against other Protestants; which is very prodigious. 5. Your last words, either pass my understanding, or else are no better than ridiculous. You say to us: 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 Fundamental Points of Faith (for, as I said, you speak expressly of such Points, in this second Part of your Dilemma) therefore we may as well object to ourselves, their more and greater differences from us; from us, I say, who daily proclaim to the world, that neither they, nor any other Heretics are our Brethren, or of the same Faith, Church, and hope of salvation. How can we object to ourselves a thing wherein we proceed with most evident consequence, and Truth? If indeed we did pretend to be their Brethren, than we might, and aught to object against ourselves, the great differences between them, and us; 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 profess, that there can be no communication, of light with darkeness, of falsehood with truth, of Heresy with Catholic doctrine. 6. You say in your (N. 10.) What else do we understand by an unfundamentall error, but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved? I ask, whether he may be saved with Repentance, or without it? If only with Repentance, you make no difference between Fundamental and unfundamentall Points; because with repentance any error may be forgiven, be it never so Fundamental. If you mean, a man may be saved with such an error, even without repentance, you contradict yourself, who perpetually affirm, that, errors not Fundamental are damnable in themselves, and cannot be pardoned, without repentance. And I have proved it to be impossible, that any culpable error can be forgiven without relinquishing it. 7. To ywr (N. 11.12, 13.14.) I have answered in several occasions. Only for your (N. 11.) it must be remembered, that I have proved Communion in Liturgy, Sacraments &c: to be essential 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 essential to a friend, as external Communion is essential to the Church; which therefore must needs be forsaken, when one departs from that which is essential to her. 8. Your (N. 15.16.17.) contain no other difficulty, except that which yourself create out of nothing, while you feign, this roving argument, and then impute it to Cha: Ma: Whosoever disbelieves any thing known by himself to be revealed by God, imputes falsehood to God and therefore errs Fundamentally. But some Protestants disbelieve things; which other believe to be testified by God; therefore they impute falsehood to God, and err Fundamentally. But why do you seek to deceive the ignorant, with such Sophisms, as these? Doth not Charity Maintained speak expressly of the case wherein, there is Question between two contradicting one another concerning some Point, which God hath revealed? And therefore one of the litigants, must really err against Divine Revelation, on, and be a formal Heretic, if ignorance chance not to excuse him; which though perhaps some will conceive, may happen in one or two or a few, yet to believe, that whole congregations, and Churches, should be excused by invincible ignorance-, notwithstanding all means of knowledge, that God fails not to afford, can be neither discreet Charity, nor charitable discretion, but a dangerous, and pernicious occasion, and incitement, to sloth, and neglect of seeking the true religion, upon confidence of finding a lawful excuse, by ignorance. You say (Pag: 21.) If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into, or kept in any Error, by any sin of his will (as it is to be feared many millions are) such Error is as the cause of it, sinful and damnable. And (Pag: 19 and 20.) you deny not, but that the far greater part of Protestants, fail in using sufficient diligence to find the truth, and that their errors are damnable; therefore 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 therefore err culpably against the divine Testimony, and commit a deadly sin, not because others, as you speak, believe a thing to be revealed by God (which Ch. ma. never said, nor dreamt) but because they themselves ought to have believed, that same thing to be revealed, which others did believe to be such, and indeed was such. Thus than you ought to reform your distracted Syllogism: Whosoever disbelieves any thing known, and which ought to be known, by himself, to be revealed by God, imputes falsehood to God, and therefore errs fundamentally: But some Protestants (you say millions, yea the greater part) disbelieve those things, which others believe to be testified by God, and which are, and aught to be known by themselves to be so testified; Therfere some Protestants (yea millions, and the greater part of them) impute falsehood to God, and err Fundamentally. 9 But yet, that it may further appear, how much you wrong Ch: Ma: I must set down his words, which, (Chap: 3. N. 3.) are these: The difference among Protestants consists not in this, that some believe some Points of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know (as the distinction ought to be applied) but that some of them disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what others believe to be testified by the word of God, wherein there is no difference between Points Fundamental and not Fundamental: Because till Points Fundamental 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 believe them: And the like is of Points not fundamental, which as soon as they come to be sufficiently propounded as divine Truths, they can no more be denied, than Points Fundamental propounded after the same manner. What could be said more clearly, to show, that Ch: Ma: spoke not of whatsoever kind of Objects, but expressly of such, as are really testified by God, and not only believed to be such by others, but also sufficiently proposed to a man's self as Divine Truths, and which therefore 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 appears, that you had no other cause, except want of Charity to Charity Maintained, to fear that his hart condemned him of a great calumny, and egregious sophistry, in imputing Fundamental and damnable error to disagreeing Protestants; because forsooth, some of them disbelieve, and wittingly oppose, what others do believe to be testified by the word of God: Cha: Ma: expressly required, that what others believed to be testified by God, should also be sufficiently proposed to one's self, before he could be obliged to believe; which sufficient proposition being supposed, yourself do not deny, but it is a damnable error, to disbelieve any such truth. 10. Your (N. 18.) hath too good propertyes, Falsehood; and Confusion, or Obscurity. You cite Ch. Ma. speaking thus: The difference among Protestants consists not in this, that some believe some Points of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know, and there you stop; but Charity maintained added these words: but that some of them disbelieve, and directly, and wittingly, and willingly oppose, what others do believe to be testified by the word of God, wherein there is no difference between Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental &c: Now I pray, is there not a main difference, between ignorance, or a not knowing, or Nescience of a thing which another believes, and a positive opposition, or actual belief of the contrary to that which another believes? How many truths are there which men do not know, and yet err not against them, be cause their very ignorance keeps them from any judgement concerning them, by way of Affirmation or negation; but they carry themselves privatively, or in a certain manner passively, or abstractively, as if there were no such objects? 11. But let us hear what you object against so manifest a truth. You say, I would gladly know, whether you speak of Protestants differing in profession only, or in opinion also. Answer. I understand not well what you mean, by differing in profession only, or in opinion also. Do you mean, that they make profession of differing in opinion, when indeed they do not differ? This were to dissemble, and lie in matters of Religion. But whatsoever your meaning be; I answer, that Charity Maintained spoke expressly of Protestants, differing in opinion, one disbelieving what another believes, as you confess out of His words: But you are willing to raise difficultyes, where otherwise none could appear. 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 believe the contrary, or know it and not believe 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 understandings of the truth of them, and these remaining vnconvinced of the truth of them, they are excusable if they do not believe. 13. Answer. Though it be much against my inclination, yet truth commands me to say, that here you show, either great ignorance, or else writ directly against your own knowledge, where you will needs confound, pure ignorance, with positive Error; the difference of which I shown 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 mere want of knowledge of some truth, or a positive error contrary to it? And by your leave, 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 implies contradiction to say, He who errs, is ignorant; seeing to be purely ignorant, in the said division of ignorance, is one member into which, ignorance is divided; and one membrum dividens cannot in good Logic include the other, and therefore error cannot include pure ignorance: For it were to say, one hath no knowledge at all, and yet hath a false knowledge, or, a privation is a positive entity, and a Nothing a Something. Your objection, He who errs, knows not the contrary Truth, and if he know not the truth, he is ignorant of it, is a mere mistake, or equivocation. For, that he who errs knows not, or is ignorant of the contrary, by a pure ignorance or Nescience, I deny: That he is ignorant by a positive error, or ignorance pravae dispositionis, I grant: and so, when you assume, He who knows not the truth, is ignorant of it, you must distinguish according to the double sense of ignorance, which hath been declared, and not speak with such confusion. This same distinction I find in Dr. Potter (Pag: 243.) where speaking of some Fundamental Articles of Faith, he hath these words: These are so absolutely necessary to all Christians, for attaining the end of our Faith, that is, the salvation of our souls; that a Christian may lose 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. Where you see, he distinguishes between error, and not knowing: and therefore one may be ignorant of what another believes, and yet not err against it, or disbelieve it: As it is one thing, not to be hot, and another to be hold. Now Charity Maintained expressly distinguishes between pure ignorance, and error; and therefore you do very ill, first to confound them, and then upon that affected mistake frame your Objections. The same equivocation you have (Pag: 25.) where you make a show of great subtlety, but indeed the Reader will find nothing but vanity, as I shown in that place. 14. You say to Charity Maintained (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 Protestant's are not ignorant, what opinion other Protestants hold, and therefore their disagreement is more patent, and not only against the opinions by whomsoever they might chance to be held, but also against opinions known to be defended by them whom they will needs call Brethren: Yet indeed it is merely accidental, 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 Indieses, that Christ is God, and Saviour of the world, and he did assent to that truth, while another in Europe, did descent from the like Revelation sufficiently proposed, this second doth truly disbelieve, what the former believes, no less than if he had known, that the other believes it; And therefore Charity Maintained said; Protestants disbelieve, and wittixgly and willingly oppose what others do belieué to be testified by the word of God, without saying unnecessarily, that they disbelieve, what they know others believe, because, as I said, this knowledge is not necessary for our present purpose, concerning the disagreement of Protestants, in matters of Faith. Much less to the purpose, yea directly against sincerity, is your saying; That if their understandings be not convinced, they are excusable if they do not believe. Charity Maintained did speak of objects sufficiently proposed as revealed by God; which are his express words, in this very number, which you impugn. 15. In your (N. 19.20.21.23.) nothing occurrs of difficulty, which hath not been answered elsewhere: And you falsify Ch. Ma. when (N. 20.) you say he concludes that there is nodifference between errors in Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental; whereas 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 God's Revelation, and damnable, (which yourself often grant) yet you know, that in other respects, he puts a main difference between 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 Maintained had stated it very clearly (N. 3.) as we have seen; i. e. that when we treat, whether error excludes salvation, we speak 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 Maintained (N. 4.) saith thus; Dr: Potter forgetting to what purpose Protestants make use of their distinction, doth sinally overthrow it, and yields as much as we can desire. Speaking (Pag: 211.) of that measure and quantity of Faith, without which, none can be saved, he saith: It is enough to believe some things by a virtual Faith, or by a general, and as it were a negative Faith, whereby they are not denied, or contradicted. Now, our question is, in case that divine truth, although not Fundamental, be denied and contradicted; and therefore, even according to Him, all such denial excludes salvation. Thus Charity Maintained; whose words you cite very imperfectly in this manner: It is enough (by Dr: Potter's confession) to believe some things negatively: i.e. not to deny them; therefore all denial of any divine Truth excludes salvation. Thus say you; omitting these very next words of Charity Maintained [now our question is, in case that divine Truths, although not Fundamental, be denied and contradicted: And therefore even according to Him, all such denial excludes salvation.] And that Dr: Potter always supposes a sufficient Proposition, before one can be obliged, not to deny, or contradict those Points of which he speaks, is evident; because one could not be obliged under 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 certain 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 foresaid words; It is enough to believe some things by a virtual Faith, or by a negative Faith, whereby they are not denied. Where it appears, that, as no man is obliged to believe those Fundamental Points, without the belief whereof, none can be saved, unless they be sufficiently proposed; so none can be obliged, not to contradict Points not Fundamental, if they want sufficient Proposal. And this is yet further demonstrated by Charity Maintained, who immediately after the words of which you take notice, and cite as His (though imperfectly) saith thus; After He (Dr: Potter) speaks 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, Fundamental, in regard of the divine Authority of God, and his word, by which it is recommended; that is, such as may not be denied or contradicted without infidelity; such as every Christian is bound with humility, and reverence, to believe whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him: (mark, whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him.) And further, Pag: 250. he saith; where the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded, (observe, sufficiently propounded) there he that opposeth, is convinced of error, and he who is thus convinced, is an Heretic, and Heresy is a work of the flesh, which excludeth from heaven (Galat: 5.20.21.) And hence it followeth, that it is Fundamental to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they are from God. Mark, convinced that they are from God, which implies a sufficient proposal. Now with what conscience could you conceal all these clear words of Potter, which by Charity Maintained are set down immediately after those which you cite out of Him (Charity Maintaryned) and impugn them? Yea the Doctor (Pag: 213.) in the very same thread of discourse which Charity Maintained alleged out of his (Pag: 211.) of which you take notice, and endeavour to defend, saith; Fundamental properly is that which Christians are obliged to believe by an express and actual Faith. In other Points, that Faith which the Cardinal Perron calls the Faith of adherency, or non-repugnance, may suffice; to wit, an humble preparation of mind to believe 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 believe 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: Therefore the denial of them, when they are so proposed, is not enough for salvation, but excludes it. Can you possibly have 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 go a journey: Therefore without a Horse no man can go a journey: As if some divine truths, viz: Those which are plainly revealed, might not be such, as of necessity were not to be denied: And others for want of sufficient declaration, denyable without danger. 18. Answer. You could not, even for a fee, have pleaded more effectually, in favour of Charity Maintained, than now you do, while your intention is to impugn Him. You grant that truths sufficiently declared, are such as of necessity are not to be denied. But both Dr: Potter, and Charity Maintained in the words of which we treat, expressly speak of truth's sufficienty declared, as I have proved; therefore, even by your own confession, they cannot be denied; which is the inference of Charity Maintained. I confess myself to find great difficulty, how to frame any answer to your example of a Horse; because I cannot penetrate, what use, or application you intended, or could make of it. Only I wish you to consider, that when Dr: Potter saith, it is enough to believe some things, by, as it were, a negative Faith, whereby they are not denied, so that one have an humble preparation of mind to believe them, when they are sufficiently cleared, that they are revealed, (as we have heard him speak) he supposes, that it is necessary to salvation to have such a preparation of mind: And then your similitude must go thus: A horse is necessary for a man to go a journey; therefore without a horse no man can go a journey; and so we may say; it is necessary (and not only sufficient) for salvation, in preparation of mind not to reject, any Point sufficiently propounded, as testified by God: Therefore, whosoever is not so prepared, excludes himself from salvation; which is that we would have. Or else thus: A horse is enough for a man to go a journey, not absolutely, but upon condition, that he be not lame, or extremely weak, or otherwise unable, to travel. Therefore, if a horse be lame, or otherwise unable, he is not enough for a man to go a journey; which consequence will teach us to make this inference; it is enough for salvation, that one believe some things with an implicit Faith, not absolutely, but upon condition, that he be ready to embrace, and believe them actually, and explicitly, when they shall be sufficiently propounded in particular: Therefore an implicit Faith, is not sufficient for salvation, if he want such a readiness of mind; which is our Conclusion. Never the less, if your Faith be so strong, that you will needs have 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 go a journey, and for that cause, that this is no good consequence, One horse is enough for a man to go a journey, therefore without a horse no man can go a journey; you know, that not only Catholics, but Potter; yourself; and all Protestants, (as we have heard you affirm heretofore) and all Christians, must deny the parity; it being most certain, and evident, that the belief of all Points Fundamental, is not enough for salvation, but is of itself, (taken alone) as it were lame, and too weak without a mind 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 denial of any Divine Truth, sufficiently propounded, excludes salvation, though one be supposed to believe all Points which are Fundamental of their own nature. These are the best considerations, that I can draw from your example of a horse, which yet you see, make strongly for us, against yourself. 14. You are pleased (N. 24.) to sum up, or, as you speak, bring out of the clouds, the discourse of Charity Maintained in his (Chap: 3. N. 5.) and then you censure it thus: Which is truly a very proper and convenient Argument ●o close up a weak discourse, wherein both the Propositionns are false for matter, confused and disordered for the form, and the Conclusion utterly inconsequent. 20. Answer. You are so far from bringing out of the clouds, the discourse of Charity Maintained, that you have cast over it a cloud, and darkness, which neither you, nor any body else, will be able to remove from it, and place it in its own former light, except by hearing his own words, which are these. I will therefore conclude with this Argument. According to all Philosophy and Divinity, the Unity and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence thereof; and therefore if the nature, and being of Faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes, but from the motive for which he believes (which is God's Word or Revelation) we must likewise affirm, that the Unity and Diversity of Faith, must be measured by God's Revelation (which is a like for all Objects) and not by the smallness, or greatness of the matter which we believe. Now that the nature of Faith is not taken chief from the greatness, or smallness of the things believed, is manifest, because otherwise one who believes only Fundamental Points, and an other who together with them, doth also believe Points not Fundamental, should have Faith of (formal) different natures; yea there should be as many (formal) differences of Faith, as there are different Points which men believe, according to different capacities, or instruction &c: And therefore we must say, that unity in Faith doth not depend upon Points Fundamental, but upon God's Revelation, equally, or unequally, proposed: And Protestants pretending an unity only by reason of their agreement in Fundamental 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 formal motive of Faith, which is God's Revelation, and consequently lose all Faith, and unity therein. In which words we see Charity Maintained speaks of that unity of Faith, which is taken from the Formal 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 unlike, of themselves. 21 Now in this discourse, what false Propositions, what confusion can you find? You say: Who knows not that the Essence of all Habits (and therefore of Faith among the rest) is taken from their Act, and their Object? If the Habit be general, from the Act and Object in general; if the Habit bespecall, from the Act and Object inspeciall. Then for the motive to a thing, that it cannot be of the essence of the thing to which is moves, who can doubt, that knows that a motive is an efficient cause; and the efficient is always extrinsecall to the effect? 22. Answer: To what purpose talk you of the Essence of Habits, seeing the Discourse of Cha: Ma: concerned only the Act of Faith, whereby we believe some Truths, because they are revealed by God, and upon this ground he proved, that every contrary Act is damnable, and a grievous sin, which cannot be verified of Habits, which of themselves are not sins? 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 us 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 formal Object or reason of Faith, the chief Motive, (mark, motive) the first and farthest Principle into which it resolves, is only divine Revelation. Observe, 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 sayeth: The chief Principle and ground on which Faith rests, and for which it firmly assents unto those truths, which the Church propounds is divine Revelation made in Scripture. Nothing less than this, nothing but this can erect or qualify an Act of supernatural Faith, which must be absotutely undoubted and certain, and without this, Faith is but opinion or persuasion, or at the most, acquired humane belief. 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, persuasion, and opinion, as Cha: Ma: said, the unity and distinction of every thing followeth, the Nature and Essence thereof. Thus you see, that Cha: Ma: spoke truth, in affirming, that the Nature and Being of Faith, is taken from the Motive for which a man believes; and that Potter useth the word Motive directly in this sense, and to this purpose. 23. What do you mean in saying; If the habit be general, the essence is taken from the Act and Object in general; If the Habit be special, from the Act and Object in special? I am very sure, that every Habit, and Act, exists in particular, though their Objects be never so general; and so the Acts to which Habits incline, are particular Acts, producible by those Habits, and nothing, taken only in general, can be producible. 24. Cham Ma. and Dr. Potter said, that our motive to believe, is the Divine Revelation, and, which is more, you affirm the same here, That God's Revelation is an equal Motive to induce us to believe all Objects revealed by him: And yet you strangely object: That the Motive to a thing cannot be of the essence of the thing to which it moves, who can doubt, that knows that a motive is an efficient cause, and the efficient is always extrinsecall to the effect? 25. Answer; First, The motive, or Formal 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 four kinds of Causes, which are commonly assigned, some will say it is Causa formalis extrinseca: and perhaps others will say, that you believe the motive 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 motive. Secondly; Though a motive 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 always extrinsecall to the effect) is of no moment. For no man ever dreamt, that the motive, or formal Object of Faith, is of the intrinsical essence of the act thereof, as Genus and Differentia are intrinsecall to the Species, or Materia and Forma are intrinsical Composito physico, but that the act, takes its essence from the formal Motive or object, and essentially is, or includes, a Reference 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: said not, that the Motive to believe is the essence of Faith; but that the essence or nature of Faith is taken from the Motive for which a man believes; Which words signify a difference, not an identity, seeing a thing is not said to take from itself, (but to be) its own Essence. Do not yourself 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 seeing natural Habits, are essiciently produced by Acts, and Acts by Habits (even supernatural Acts) as by their efficient causes: And therefore according to your words, are always extrinsecall to the effect. And so you answer, and confute your own self. 26. You doubt what Cha: ma: did mean by these words (Gods Revelation is alike for all Objects.) But his meaning is clear; that God's Revelation is the same, whether it be applied, to Points Fundamental, or not Fundamental, and can no more be disbelieved, in one kind of these Objects, than in another, it being no less impossible, that the Supreme Verity, and Veracity, can testify a falsehood, in a small, than in a great matter; as yourself here affirm expressly, that God's Revelation is an equal Motive, to induce us to believe all Objects revealed by him. But you say; this sense is impertinent; which you must give me leave to deny. For, if it be alike damnable, to reject God's testimony, whether the matter be in itself, great or small; it follows, 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 known to be a divine truth, one of them cannot be saved, without repentance. And it is strange, that still you will be altering the state of the Question, notwithstanding, that Cha: Ma: expressly declared, that we speak of persons, to whom the Divine Revelation, is sufficiently propounded for such. Where now are the false Propositions, the disorder of form, the inconsequence of the Conclusion, which you so contemptuously objected to Cha: ma:? But chief, where shall we find in all these your diversions, and tergiversations, a direct Answer, to the discourse of Cha: ma:, that the Essence, and unity, or diversity of Faith is chief to be attended, in order to the Formal object, which is Divine Revelation, and not in respect of the matter, of Fundamental, or not Fundamental 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 been answered at large heretofore. 27. For the answer which in your (N. 26,) you give to the (N. 9.10.11.) of Ch: Ma: if the Reader will take the pains, to peruse those numbers in Ch: Ma: he will find, that there is a great difference, to take things from the Original itself, and to receive them from a Copy, drawn by a partial hand, of an unsincere Adversary. Cha: Ma: proves the Church Catholic to be universally infallible, because otherwise, she might either propose things contrary to divine Revelation, or else propose for a revealed Truth, that which is not such, which were a damnable sin, and Dr. Potter confesses that the Church cannot err damnably. 28. To this you answer, that the Church may do these things by Ignorance or mistake, and so without damnable sin. But this answer is confuted by what hath been said heretofore. For, if it be evident in Scripture, that the Church may err in some Points, she cannot but know, that she exposes Herself to danger, of error against the divine Testimony, and consequently sins damnable, unless she hath evident Scripture for what she proposes; which cannot happen when she proposes a falsehood. If it be not evident in Scripture, that she may err in some Points, than you, who take Scripture for the sole Rule of Faith, cannot be sure, that she may err; especially if we reflect, that, Scripture assures us (as Protestants grant) that she is Infallible in some (namely in Fundamental) Points, and doth not tell us 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 err in things absolutely necessary, but a farther assistance is conditionally promised, even such an Assistance as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all, not only necessary, but very profitable truth, and guard us from all, not only destructive, but also hurtful errors. And therefore to Char: Maint. saying, that a Church not erring in Fundamentals, doth as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands; as much as lies in her power to do; you answer This is manifestly untrue. For, God's assistance is always ready to promote Her farther. It is ready, I say, but on condition the Church does implore it: on conduit 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 err by Ignorance or Mistake and so without damnable sin; seeing on the one side, every error against Divine Revelation, is of itself a damnable sin, and on the other, the Church wants not sufficient assistance not to err, and in fact shall be sure not to err if she be not negligent to follow God's Assistance when it is offered in the divine directions of Scriptuae and reason; and therefore her Errors must needs be culpable, as proceeding only from her own negligence. In this very (N. 26.) which I confute, yourself assirme, that she cannot be excused from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing Points not Fundamental, to be believed by Christians, as matters of Faith, if it be understood of such unfundamentall Points, as she is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture. Indeed if she propose such, as matters of Faith certainly true, she may well be questioned, quo warranto? She builds without a foundation, and says, Thus saith the Lord, wh●n the Lord doth not say so: which cannot be excused from rashness and high presumption. But though she may err in some point not Fundamental, yet may she have certainty enough in proposing others, evidently and undeniably set down in Scripture, and consequently, may be without all rashness proposed by the Church, as certain divine revelations. These be your words, which clearly overthrow, your own Answer. For, I argue thus: If the Church proceed upon evident Scripture, she cannot err in those things. If not; she always exposes herself to danger of error, for the matter (which may prove false) and to certain actual error, for the manner, by proposing as a Point of Faith certainly true, which yet is always uncertain, if she in such things may be deceived, as you say she may, whensoever she is not warranted by evident Text of Scripture. Thus by your own grounds, the Church is either certain, that she errs not, as relying upon evident Scripture; or if she have not such evidence, she is certain, that she exposes herself, and others, to error against Divine Revelation, which cannot be excused from a great sin of rashness and high presumption. And then, when will your excuse of ignorance, or mistake, have place, which cannot happen when she hath evidence of Scripture, and will not excuse, when she wants such evidence? And so there is no mean, between certainty, that she errs not; and committing a sin, by exposing Herself, to a known danger of error 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 us into all not only necessary, but very profitable 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 than to bring her to salvation? Is it not necessary that God keep his promise? And how do you find fault with Cham Ma. for saying, that if the Church be infallible only in Fundamental Points, if she err not in such Points, she performs as much as our Saviour exacts at her hands, seeing 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 do more than is necessary, and so more shall be necessary, than is necessary; because it is necessary to do what we are bound to do. 30. You say to Ch. Ma; The ground of your error here, is your not distinguishing, between Actual certainty, and Absolute infallibility. But in this, you speak either against your own conscience, or against manifest truth. For if you say, the meaning of Cham ma. to be, that whosoever is actually certain of one thing, must have an absolute infallibility in all other matters, your Conscience cannot but tell you, that He could have no such meaning, as if, because I am actually certain, what I am doing at this instant, I must therefore be infallible, and know certainly, what every one is doing in the Indieses. But if you mean, that it is an error in Ch: Ma: to say, that if one have actual certainty of a thing, he must be infallible both in that, and all other, for which he hath the same, or like grounds, to make him certain; than you err against manifest truth, it being evident, that if I clearly see myself to have an undoubted Ground, to believe a thing, it is impossible, that I should err in any other, for which I also evidently see, that I have the same certain ground. This is our case. If I be actually certain, by evidence of Scripture, of the truth of one thing, I am certain, that I cannot err in any other Point, for which I have the like evidence of Scripture; as he, who actually assents to a demonstration, known to be such, can neither err in it, nor in any other, known to have the like certainty. This being supposed, your examples prove against yourself, as I shown in an other like occasion. 31. I have already particularly and at large, answered your (N. 27.28.29.) In your (N. 30 33.34.) you impugn Ch: Ma. whose words I wish you had set down, as you found them in Him, and not as you collect and offer them to the Reader; whom therefore I must entreat, to peruse the Author himself. Ch. Ma. (N. 13.) saith, That, to limit the general promises of our Saviour for his Church, to Points Fundamental, as namely, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her, and that the Holy Ghost shall lead them into all truth etc. 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 itself, may be restrained, to infallibility in Fundamental Points. And in this, Ch. Ma. hath reason. For, seeing you have no certain Rule of Faith, but Scripture; whatsoever you cannot prove by evident Scripture, cannot be to you, certain, or a Point of Faith. Let us then take these words (Matth. 16.18.) The gates of Hell shall not prevail etc. Which our B. Saviour pronounced of the Church, and those other, (Jo: 16. V 13.14.16.) The spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with you for ever, which promise, Potter saith (Pag: 153.) was made directly and primarily to the Apostles (who had the spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner, than any since them) yet it was made to them for the behoof of the Church, and is verified in the Church universal. The first words, The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her, Potter (Pag. 153.) limits they shall not prevail so far, as to sever it from the foundation; that is, that She shall not err in Fundamental Points. Now, I beseech you, produce some evident Text of Scripture, declaring, that those words are not to be understood, as they sound, that the Church shall be secure from all errors against Faith, even in Points not Fundamental, (which errors are gates that lead to hell; seeing they are, as you often confess, damnable in themselves, and so lead to hell and damnation) but with this limitation, that she shall be secured for Points Fundamental. Produce, I say, some such evident Text of Scripture, and not topical discourses of your own. In the mean time, while you are busy about that impossible task, (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 understood of the Apostles, and of the universal Church; but so, as being referred to the Apostles, it signify all truths, Fundamental, and not Fundamental Points; which is a harder explanation, than that of the former words out of S. Matthew: The gates of hell etc. because you are engaged, to allege some evident Text of Scripture, to prove that the very selfsame, as I may say, indivisible Text, which is acknowledged to speak, both of the Apostles, and of the Church, must be forced, and as it were racked, to speak one thing of the Apostles, and another of the Church: All truth, for the Apostles; not all, but only Fundamental, truth, for the Church. Bring, I say, some such evident Text of Scripture. But, it seems, you did easily perceive, that no such place could be pretended: and therefore in stead of Scripture, or the Word of God, you offer only your own 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 error it may be reform 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 have recourse, for the discovering and correcting their error? 33. Answer. I have often said, that in matters, known by revelation only, and depending on the free will, or decree of Almighty God, we are not to prove, by humane reason, what he hath decreed. Protestants grant, that, both the Apostles, and the Church, are infallible for Fundamental Points. If then, one should make use of your reason, and say: (There is not the same reason for the Church's infallibility in Fundamental Points, as for the Apostles. For, if the Church fall into such errors, it may be reform by comparing it with the Rule of the Apostles doctrine, and Scripture. But, if the Apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity, to whom shall we have recourse, for the discovering and correcting their error?) What would you answer? Would you grant, that the Church is not infallible in Fundamental Articles, because there is not the same reason for Her infallibility in Fundamental 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 self same reason, or necessity, for the Church's infallibility, as for the Apostles (which is all that that reason proves, and so is a Sophism 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 therefore you must be content, that Scripture declare God Almighties Will, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church; in which Promise, seeing there is no restraint to Fundamental Points, it becomes not you, to divide the same sentence, into different meanings, as they are applied to the Apostles, and as they have 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 own Grounds, quickly dispatch all, and say; that seeing the errors of the universal Church, can be only not Fundamental, there is no necessity, of having recourse to any, for the discovering, and correcting them; and so you cannot infer, that the Apostles for reforming errors in the Church, need be infallible in Points not Fundamental, no more than you say the Church herself is. Thus (Pag: 35. N. 7,) You say, Christians have, and shall have means sufficient to determine, not all Controversyes, but all necessary to be determined: And what Rule, will you, in your Grounds, give to determine, what Points are necessary to be determined? except by saying, that eo ipso that they are not Fundamental, or not necessary to salvation to be believed, they are not necessary to be determined, as you say in the same place; If some Controversyes may for many Ages be undetermined, and yet in the mean while men may be saved, why should, or how can the Churches being furnished with effectual means to determine all Controversyes in Religion, be necessary to salvation, the end itself, to which these means are ordained, being, as Experience shows, not necessary? If then, (may we say) the belief of unfundamentall Points, be not necessary to salvation (which is the end of our Faith) the means to beget such a Faith in the Church, which you say must be the universal 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 Fundamental? Thus, while by your humane discourses, you will establish the universal infallibility, of the Apostles, you destroy it, as not being necessary, for discovering, or correcting, either Fundamental errors, from which the Church is free, or unfundamentall, which are not necessary, to be corrected, or discovered. Morover, this very reason of yours, proves a necessity of the Churches being universally infallible, supposing the truth which we proved (Chap: 2.) that, Scripture alone contains not evidently, and particularly, all Points necessary to be believed; and that even for those which it contains, a Living Judge and Interpreter is necessary. For, this truth supposed, I apply your Argument, thus: If any fall into error by a false interpretation of Scripture, it may be discovered, and corrected by the Church. But if the Church may err, to whom shall we have recourse, for correcting her error? And here, incidently, I put you in mind, of the Argument which you prise so much, as to glory, that you never could find any Catholic, who was able to answer it; that if a particular man, or Church, may fall into error, and yet remain a member of the Church universal, why may not the Church universal err, and yet remain a true Church? The Answer, I say, is easy, almost out of your own words, that there is not the same reason, for every particular man's or Churches, infallibility, or security from error, as for that of the Catholic Church. For, if private persons, or Churches, fall into error, it may be reform by comparing it with the Decrees and Definitions of the universal Church. But if the Church may err, to whom shall we have recourse to correct her error? As S. Hierom: sayeth (Lib: 1. Comment: in Cap 5. Matth:) Si doctor erraverit, à quo alio doctore emendabitur? But of this I have said enough heretofore. last; give me leave 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 prove the universal infallibility of the Apostles, and not of the Church, by the same Text of Scripture, which speaks of both in the same manner. But let us hear your other reasons of disparity, between 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 have 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 Canonical Writers, are the Foundation of the Church, according to that of S. Paul, built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets; therefore their stability, in reason ought to be greater than the Churches which is built upon them. 35. Answer. Your conclusion (therefore their stability in reason ought &c:) shows that you ground yourself 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 have 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 have said to your own ground, In reason more strength is required in the Foundation, than in the Edifice, seeing in that case, both the Foundation and Edifice, should have had an , and firm strength, and stability? Your reason (if you will have it prove any thing against us) must go upon this principle; that nothing which depends, or which is builded, upon another for its certainty, can be absolutely certain; which is a ground evidently false. The Conclusion in a demonstrative Argument, is abfolutly certain, and yet depends on Premises. The Church is infallible in Fundamentals; and yet in that infallibility, is builded upon the Foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets. The absolute infallibility of the Apostles, was builded upon our B. Saviour's Words, and even his infallibility, as man, was builded upon the infallibility 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 upon another higher infallibility. And I return your own words against you, if but wise men (or even men in their wits) have 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 fail the building, if it be in their power to do both these things, with as much certainty, and facility, as to do one of them. And no wonder; seeing the stability of the Foundation is but a Means to the End, that the Edifice which is builded upon it, be stable, and every wise man hath greater regard to the End then to the Means, in respect of which, the End may be called, the Foundation upon which depends the Election of the Means; and in vain it is, that the Foundation cannot fail the building, if the building may fall from the Foundation, And if, for example, to build high, were a means to make the building not fall from the Foundation, as digging deep, makes the Foundation not fail the building, men would be as careful, to build high, as now they make sure to dig low for better settling the Foundation, and every one would aim 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 bestow absolute infallibility, upon the Church, than upon the Apostles; upon the Edifice, than upon the Foundation; and therefore 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 error, but so, as the Church received Her Doctrine from the Apostles, and not the Apostles from the Church. You find fault with Charity Maintained, who making right use of this metaphor, argues that as a Foundation alone, is not a house, so to believe Fundamentals, or the Foundation alone, is not sufficient to constitute a Church, or house of God, without the belief of all Points sufficiently propounded, as revealed by God: and now yourself ground a matter of greatest moment, (the infallibility of the Church) upon the same metaphor, very ill applied, towards any other purpose, except to prove, the contradictory of that, for which you allege it, and to confute yourself, as even now I have demonstrated. And besides all this; seeing, in your Doctrine, we believe the Scriptures, and the Doctrine of the Apostles, or that there were any such men as the Apostles, for the Authority of the Church, or universal Tradition; the Church, to you is the Foundation of your belief, 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 own argument, directly overthrows, that which you would prove by it. 36. By what I have now said, your other reason in the same place is answered; That a dependent infallibility, (especially if the dependence be voluntary) cannot be so certain, as that on which it depends: But the infallibility of the Church, depends upon the infallibility of Apostles, as the straightness of the thing regulated, upon the straightness of the Rule: and besides, this dependence is voluntary, for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this Rule; being nothing else but an agregation of men, of which every one has freewill, and is subject to passions and error. Therefore the Church's infallibility, is not so certain as that of the Apostles. 37. Answer. How many flaws appear in these not many words? And to omit, that of Dependence, 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 therefore is the foundation on which our assent depends, I say; First. Your conclusion is not contrary to the Assertion of your adversary. A foul fault in Logic, which teaches that always the conclusion of the disputant, aught to be directly contradictory, to that which the Defendant affirms, and not consistent with it. Otherwise the Opponent, would be discovered, to fight with nobody. You conclude; Therefore the Church's infallibility, is not so certain, as that of the Apostles. Which is nothing against Charity Maintained, who proved only, that the Church is so certain, and infallible in Her Definitions, that they cannot be false, forbearing to dispute, whether one certainty, may be greater, than another: and therefore, secondly, you mistake, or wittingly alter the question, passng from intention, 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 Fundamental, and not Fundamental; which is a very inconsequent consequence; it being sufficient, that the Apostles be more infallible than the Church quoad modum; seeing 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 infer, that their infallibility also must be so limited extensiuè, as not to reach to unfundamentall Points; and as the Church, for Fundamental Points, is builded, and depends upon the Apostles, and so, quoad modum, not so infallible, as they were; yet Protestants grant, that she is absolutely 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 Fundamental, and therefore proves in neither. Thirdly: according to this your discourse, no natural truth, can be inferred, with certainty, from the most common, and known Principles of natural reason; as, Nothing can be, and not be, at the same tyme. Every whole is greater than any one part included therein, and the like; because, whatsoever is inferred from such known Axioms must depend on them, and therefore not be certain, 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 mean, that she may be absolutely infallible, though not so infallible as the Apostles, quoad modum, you speak 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 else out an aggregation of men, of which every one has freewill, and is subject to passions, and error. And were not the Apostles an aggregation of men, of which every one had freewill, and was subject to passions and error, if they had been left to themselves? And therefore 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 Grounds of Atheism. But is the Church indeed, nothing else but an aggregation of men subject to passion's and error? Hath she not a promise of divine assistance, even according to Protestants, against all Fundamental errors? which surely is more than to be, nothing else, than an aggregation of men, subject to passions, and errors even Fundamental? And as for freewill: I ask, whether that be taken away, by the Church's infallibility in Fundamental Points, or no. If not, than freewill, may well consist with infallibility. If it be taken away; then what absurdity is it to say, that it is taken away by infallibility in Points not Fudamentall? In aword: whatsoever you answer about infallibility and freewill in the Apostles, for all Points; and in the Church for Fundamental articles; the same will serve to confute your own Objection, and show, that you contradict your own doctrine, and the Doctrine of Protestants, yea of all Christians, who believe the Apostles to be infallible. But of this I have spoken heretofore, more than once, and will now pass to the examination of your answer to the argument of Charity Maintained; that by Potter's manner of interpreting, those texts of Scripture, which speak of the stability, and infallibility of the Church, and limiting it to Points Fundamental, he may affirm, that the Apostles, and other Writers of Canonical Scripture, were endued with infallibility, only in setting down Points Fundamental. For, if it be urged, that all Scripture is divinely inspired; Potter hath afforded you a ready answer, that Scripture is inspired, only in those parts or parcels, wherein it delivereth Fundamental Points. Of these words of Charity Maintained you take no notice, but only say, that the Scripture saith, All Scripture is divinely inspired. Show but as much for the Church: show 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 show by what Law, Rule, Privilege, or evident Text of Scripture, you take upon you, to restrain general Promises (made for the Church) to Points Fundamental, and not limit those words, All Scripture is divinely inspired, to the same Fundamental Points. For, this you neither do, nor are able to answer; but dissemble that Charity Maintained did expressly prevent your alleging this very Text, All Scripture is divinely inspired. Nay, beside this, you do not show, by what authority, you do not only restrain the Praedicatum, (divinitus inspirata) but also the subjectum together with the sign, all, (All Scripture) which not only may, but in your doctrine, must be limited, in a strange manner; seeing you teach, that some Part of Scripture, is infallible neither in Fundamental, nor unfundamentall Points. For here, (N. 32.) you endeavour to prove 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 universally true, for any kind of Points, that All Scripture, is divinely inspired. How then will you prove by these words, that Scripture is infallible in all Points, if yourself limit the Subjectum of that Proposition, which is Scripture, to certain Parts of Scripture, and that indeed the Praedicatum, (divinely inspired) may be limited to Fundamental Points, upon as good ground, as you limit the general promises of God, and words of Scripture, which concern the infallibility of the Church? 39 But, (N. 33.) you will prove 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 prove this sequel, you offer us a needless Syllogism. But I have showed, that the Apostles, may have infallibility in a more high, absolute, and independent manner, than the Church, although the Church's infallibility, reach to Points not Fundamental; as Protestants will not deny, that the Apostles had infallibility in Fundamental Points, in a more high manner, than the Church hath; though yet she be absolutely Infallible in all Fundamental articles. Yea, if you will have the Doctor speak 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 infer) infallibility; though not in so high a manner as the Apostles. I entreat the Reader to peruse Charity Maintained (N. 13.) and judge whether he speaks not with all reason, and proves what he saith in this behalf; and if Potter declare himself otherwise, and teach (notwithstanding his own confession, that what was promised to the Apostles, is verified also in the universal Church) that the Church, may err in Points not Fundamental, I can only favour him, and you, so far, as to tell you, he contradicts himself. 40. Whatsoever you say to the contrary, Charity Maintained (N. 13.) spoke truth, in affirming, that Potter, Speaks very dangerously towards this purpose (of limiting the Apostles infallibility to Fundamental Points.) For though the Doctor name the Church, when he sayeth (Pag: 152.) (that there are many millions of truths in Nature, and History, whereof the Church is ignorant; and that many truths lie unrevealed in the infinite treasury of God's wisdom, where with the Church is not acquainted) yet his reasons, either prove nothing, or else must comprise the Apostles, no less than the Church, as Charity Maintained expressly observes (Pag: 93.) though I grant that some of the Doctor's words, agree only to the Church, which is nothing against Charity Maintained, that other of Potter's words and reasons agree also to the Apostles, and therefore I assure you he had no design in the (&c) at which you carp. But let the Doctor say, and mean, what he best pleases; sure I am, that neither he nor you, will ever be able to prove, by any evident Text of Scripture, that the foresaid, or other general promises of infallibility, extend to all sorts of Points for the Apostles, and to Fundamental Articles only, for the Church. And this is the main business in hand. Though in the mean time, I must not omit to say, that your Syllogism is very captious, and deceitful, which is: He that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentals, 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 Fundamentals: 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: Therefore he limits not the Apostles infallibility to Fundamentals. I say, the Major, of this Syllogism, on which all depends, is deceitful. For though he that grants the Church infallible in Fundamentals, 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 Fundamentals, by only, and precisely, granting the Church infallible in Fundamentals, and ascribing to the Apostles, the guidance of the Spirit in a more high manner, yet he may do it by some other way, and in particular, by the means of which now we speak, that is, by restraining the self same words of Scripture, which without distinction speak of the Apostles, and the Church, to Fundamental Points in respect of the Church, and not in order to the Apostles, and this voluntarily, without proof 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 involve the Apostles no less than the Church, as even now I have proved. Howsoever; that you are not a faithful interpreter of Dr: Potter, appears by your saying, He out of courtesy 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 conditional, limited, moderate, secondary sense, they may be understood of the Church. For, where doth Dr: Potter say, that these words agree to the Church in a conditional sense? Which conditional 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 overthrows the doctrine of Potter, and other Protestants, that the Church is absolutely infallible, and cannot err in Fundamental Points; in which yet she might err, if the promise of our Saviour, were only conditional, and it would give no more to the Church, than to any private person, who is sure not to err, not only in Fundamental, but even in unfundamentall Points, as far as he adheres to the direction of the Apostles. And by this reflection, the difficulty against Dr: Potter, and you, grows to be greater; how the same words of Scripture, are understood both of the Apostles, and of the Church, absolutely for Points Fundamental; and only conditionally, for the Church, in Points not Fundamental: And how will you be able to prove, 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 Doctor says (which yet, I know, he never intended,) no more was promised in this place; therefore he says, 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 Doctor 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 intent not to do. You say, there may be other places besides this. I answer: It is neither in your, nor in any man's power, to allege any place, which may not be interpreted, and restrained, as you limit this of which we speak. Certainly, the Doctor being to prove the absolute infallibility of the Apostles, was much to blame, for alleging ineffectual Texts, if He could have found better. Indeed I find in his (Pag: 152.) these words: That other promise of Christ's being with his (Matth: 28.20.) unto the end of the world, is properly meant (as some Ancients truly give the sense) of his comfortable aid and assistance, supporting the weakness of his Apostles and their Successors in their Ministry, or preaching of Christ. But it may well be also applied, as it is by others, (a) 5. Leo Scrm: 10, de Nativ: Cap: 5. to the Church universal: 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 returns to be asked, by what evident place, of Scripture, can you, or He prove, that this Text speaks of an universal Assistance for the Apostles, and only a limited direction for the Church, seeing Potter grants, that it may well be also applied, as it is by others, to the Church universal? You could say (N. 30.) Show where it is written, that all the Decrees of the Church are divinely inspired, and the Controversy will be at an end. And much more may we say to you; Show some evidenr Text of Scripture, that the Apostles are infallible in all Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental, the Church only in Fundamentals, or that any Text of Scripture makes any such distinction. I say much more may we say, Show etc. 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 believe nothing, as a matter of Faith, unless it be evidently set down in Scripture, are obliged, either to prove the difference of infallibility in the Apostles and the Church, by some evident Text of Scripture, or else you cannot be assured of it, as a thing revealed by God. You see how hard you were pressed, and therefore were forced to give this noble answer; That Dr. Potter out of courtesy grants us, that those words, The spirit shall lead you into all truth, and shall abide with you for ever, in a conditional, limited, moderate, secondary sense, may be understood of the Church. But I have showed, that you misalledge the Doctor, who says expressly, that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles, and is verified in the Church universal. Now I ask, whether, or no, it be true; that this promise is verified in the Church? If it be true, that is, if God hath revealed it to be so, one would think it were no point of ceremony, or courtesy, but a matter of necessity, to acknowledge so much. It seems, you think the Doctor was of your disposition, who (Pag 69. N. 47.) say to Charity Maintained; You might have met with an answerer, that would not have suffered you to have said so much Truth together, but to me it is sufficient, that it is nothing to the purpose. But I go on, and say, if it be not true, nor revealed, that those words are verified of the Church, how durst Potter affirm, that they were verified of Her? Is it lawful to add to the old, and coin new Revelations? Doth not Potter say (Pag: 222.) to add to it (he speaks of the Creed) is high presumption, almost as great as to detract from it? 42. You say, The Apostles must be led into all such truths, as was requisite to make them the Church's Foundations. Now, such they could not be without freedom from etrour in all those things which they delivered constantly, is certain revealed truths. And to prove, that the Apostles are the Foundation of the Church, you allege (N. 30) S. Paul, saying, Built upon 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 necessary to judge of controversyes, which yourself (Pag: 35. N. 7.) confess to require an universal infallibility. Secondly seeing Scripture contains not all points, necessary to be believed, the Church must be endued with infallibility for such points: Otherwise we could have no certainty concerning them. And if once you grant her infallible, for Points not evident 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 universally infallible, because the Church was builded on them; so every Christian is builded upon the Church, and for that cause she must be universally infallible. Thirdly; We are not said to be builded upon the writings of the Apostles, or Scripture, but upon 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 us, and proves, that we are builded on the unwritten word, and might have been so, though no Scripture, had been written. Fourthly; you still mistake the Question, and seek diversions but never go about to prove by some evident Text of Scripture that the infallibility of the Apostles, may not be limited to Fundamental Points, as your restrain to such Points the general Promises of infallibility, made to the Church in holy Scripture, and limit the word Foundation, to the writings of the Apostles, which I have showed to be a manifestly untrue limitation. S. Paul (1. Tim: 3.) avouches the Church to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth, and yet you deny Her to be universally infallible. How then can you prove by the word Foundation, (which cansignify no more, than the pillar and Ground of Truth) that the Apostles cannot err in any Point, but the Church may? Yea even to make this place, (Ephes: 2.20.) clear, 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 therefore: Fiftly, you have cause to reslect on what Cornelius a Lapide (upon this place) sayeth: That Beza (and not he alone) interprets, (upon the Foundation of the Apostles) to signify Christ, who is the Foundation of the Apostles, Prophets and the whole Church; and he (Beza) sayeth, that it is Antichristian, to put an other foundation: For no man can put an other Foundation beside that which is put, jesus Christ. If this exposition be admitted, the said Text (Ephes: 2.20.) will not prove that the Apostles, but only that our Saviour (the Foundation of the Apostles, and of the Church) was infallible, 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 seem evidently false, being the Opinion of so great a Rabbi; as also because it is very agreeable, to the manner which protestants hold, in impugning Catholic Doctrine, when for example, they argue: The Scripture sayeth, We have an Advocate Jesus Christ. Therefore Saints, cannot be our Advocates, though in an infinitely lower degree, than our Saviour is: Especially if we reflect, that it is said of our Saviour with a Negative, or exclusive, particle, No man can put an other Foundation, whereas in those words we have 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 therefore 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 said, she depends on them, not they on Her; and you wrong us, while (N. 30.) in your first syllogism, you speak in such manner, as the Reader will conceive that we make the infallibility of the Church equal, in all respects, to that of the Apostles, the contrary whereof all Catholics believe, and prove. I omit to observe, that you take occasion to descant upon these words (as well) which are not found in Charity Maintained, though for the thing itself he might have used them. Your (N. 31. and 32.) have been 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 verified 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 said, but what he did, or could prove; and in particular I say, it cannot be proved by any evident Text of Scripture, that the words which he confesses to be verified in the Church, are limited to fundamental points, in respect of her, and not as they are referred to the Apostles. Secondly; whereas you say; what is opposed to absolute, but limited or restrained? I reply; absolute may be taken in divers senses, according to the matter, argument, or subject, to which it is applied; and therefore though some time it may be opposed to limited, yet not always. Do not you (N. 33.) oppose to absolute, a conditional, moderate, secondary sense, which being epithetons much different one from an other give us to understand, that you are too resolute in ask, what is opposed to (but limited) seeing more things than one may be opposed to it. What Logician will not tell you, that in Logic, not Limited, but Relative, 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 dependence to the infallibility of the Apostles, as to its Cause, which particular Relation the Apostles have not to the Church. 46. You say also (N. 34.) that though it were supposed, that God had obliged himself by promise, to give his Apostles infallibility, only in things necessary to salvation, nevertheless it is utterly inconsequent, that he gave them no more; or that we can have no assurance of any farther assistance, that he gave them: Especially when he himself, both by his word, and by his works hath assured us, that he did assist them farther. 47. Answer; I know not to what purpose, or upon what occasion you utter these words. Only I am sure, that they contain, both a manifest falsehood, and contradiction to yourself, who say here (N. 33.) If we once suppose they (the Apostles) may have erred in some things of this nature (in things which they delivered constantly, as certain revealed Truths) it will be utterly undiscernible what they have erred in, and what they have not. Now if God hath promised to give his Apostles infallibility only in things necessary to salvation, (which here you expressly suppose,) it is clear we cannot be certain of the truth of their writings in any one thing: Which supposed; (that we cannot be certain that their writings are true) how can you say, that God both by his word, and by his works hath assured us, that he aid assist them farther? (upon that supposition) the Scripture may be false, and recount works never wrought, and so, it is consequent, that we can have no assurance (by his written word) of any farther assistance that God gave them, (if it be supposed that he gave them infallibility, only in things necessary to salvation;) which is the contradictory to your assertion, and yet it is evidently deduced from your own express words, and doctrine. Nay you could not be sure, that the Apostles had infallibility, even for Fundamental Points, if once it be supposed, that they, and consequently, their writings, were subject to error in any thing. So far from truth is your saying (we could have assurance of farther assistance!) Your (N. 35.36.) contain no difficulty, which hath not been answered heretofore. 48. I wish you had in your (N. 37.) set down at large the words of Charity Maintained, whereby he proves (N. 15.) that according to the grounds of Protestants, it is sufficient for salvation, that Scripture be infallible in Fundamental Points only, as they limit to such Points, the infallibility of the Church, and accordingly, interpret Scriptures, speaking thereof. The sum of his Discourse is this: Put together these Doctrines: That Scripture cannot err in Points Fundamental; that they clearly contain all such Points; that Protestants can tell what Points in particular be Fundamental; it is manifest, that it is sufficient for salvation, that Scripture be infallible only in Points Fundamental. For seeing, all are obliged to believe explicitly all Fundamental Articles, it is necessary to know which in particular be Fundamental; which Protestants cannot know, except by Scripture, which alone in their grounds, contains all that is necessary for us to know; and therefore knowing by Scripture, what Points in particular be Fundamental, (as N. 40. you say expressly, men may learn from the Scripture, that such Points are Fundamental, others are not so) and that Scripture is infallible in all Fundamentals, 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 Fundamental Points are delivered in Scripture with infallibility; this is a Fundamental Point; therefore it is delivered in Scripture with infallibility. And the Syllogism at which you say men would laugh, is only your own; The Scripture is true in something; the Scripture says that these Points only are Fundamental, therefore this is true, that these are so. For, say you, every freshman in Logic knows that from mere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded. But you should correct your Syllogism, thus: All that is necessary, the Scripture delivers with infallibility; but to know what Points in particular be Fundamental, is necessary; therefore the Scripture delivers it with infallibility. Besides, you say; If without dependence on Scripture Protestants did know what were Fundamental, and what not, they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentals, and erroneous in other things. Now both you and Potter affirm, that there is an universal Tradition, that the Creed contains all Fundamental Points, and consequently, that in virtue of such a Tradition, men may believe all Fundamental Points, without dependence, or knowledge of Scripture, as also for universal Tradition you believe Scripture itself. Hear your own words (Pag: 198. N. 15.) The certainty I have of the Creed, that it was from the Apostles, and contains the Principles of Faith, I ground it not upon scripture; Therefore according to your own grounds, Protestants may believe the Scripture to be true in Fundamentals, and erroneous in other things. And you did not well, to conceal this Argument, taken from the Creed, which was expressly urged by Changed Ma: in that very (N. 15.) which you answer. By what I have said, it appears, that, (in the grounds of Protestants) the knowledge of Fundamentals need not have for Foundation, the universal truth of Scripture, as you say, but only the truth thereof for all Fundamental Points, and for knowing what Points in particular be Fundamental, as I have declared. So we must conclude, that the Argument of Ch: Ma: stands good; that if you limit the infallibility of the Church, you may upon the same ground, limit the infallibility of the Apostles, and their writings, namely, the Holy Scripture. 49. Your (N. 39) goes upon a mere equivocation, or a voluntary mistake, you being not ignorant that Charity Maintained said (N. 16.) that no Protestant, can with assurance believe the universal Church in Points not fundamentall, because they believe that in such points she may err; which sequel is very true, and clear. For how can I believe with assurance, an Authority believed to be fallible. If she allege some evident Reason, Scripture, &c: I believe her, no more than I would believe any child, Turk, or Jewe, and so I attribute nothing to her authority, nor can be said to believe her. Thus you say (N. 36.) We cannot believe the present Church in propounding Canonical Books, upon her own Authority though we may for other reasons believe these Books to be Canonical which she proposes. Your instances are against yourself. For if the devil prove that there is a God, or a Geometritian demonstrate some conclusion, I neither believe the devil, who I know, was a Liar from the beginning, nor the Geometritian, whom I know to be fallible, but I assent for the Reason which they give, by whomesoever it had been given: and therefore you speak a contradictory, in saying (N. 38.) Though the Church being not infallible I cannot believe Her in every thing she says, yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves, either by Scriptures, or universal Tradition. This I say, implies a contradiction, to believe, one because he proves; seeing the formal object, or Motive of Belief, is the Authority of the speaker, and not the Reason which he gives, which may produce assents of divers 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 Maintained thus: The Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentals, unless I know them before I go to learn of her, I may be rather deluded than instructed by her; and than you say: The Reason and connexion of this consequence, I fear neither I nor you do well understand. But you fear, where there is no cause of fear. For, is it not a clear consequence, that if the Church be infallible only in Fundamental points, and I have recourse to her about any matter, not knowing it to be Fundamental, I cannot be sure, but that she may err therein? We have hard yourself saying; of mere particulars nothing can be certainly concluded, and (to use your own words) who would not laugh at him, who should argue thus? the Church is infallible in some things; the Church saith this is true, Therefore it is true. Or thus: the Church is infallible only in fundamental Points, The Church sayeth, this particular is true, which I know not whether, or not it be Fundamental, therefore the Church is infallible in this. The conclusion should be: Therefore I cannot know that the Church is infallible in this. You say, (N. 37.) that the Scripture must be universally true, and not only in fundamentals, because otherwise it could not be a sufficient warrant to believe this thing, that these only points are Fundamental, which shows, your opinion to be, that it would little avail us, to know that Scripture is infallible in fundamentals only, unless we could know, what Points in particular are fundamental, and therefore you impugn yourself, while you find fault with Ch: Ma: for saying, that if the Church be infallible only in fundamentals, we cannot believe her with certainty unless we know, that such and such things are Fundamental. The residue of this Number (39) you spend in distinguishing between being infallible in fundamentals and being an infallible guide in fundamentals; of which I have already spoken at large. 51. In your (N. 40.) you cite these words as out of Char. Maintain. They that know what Points are Fundamental, otherwise then by the Church's Authority, learn not of the Church. Char. Maint. speaks more distinctly, and sayeth: If before they address themselves to the Church, they must know what points are Fundamental, they learn not of her but willbe as fit to teach, as to be taught by her. How then are all Christians so often, so seriously, upon so dreadful menaces, by Fathers, Scriptures, and our blessed Saviour himself, counselled, and commanded to seek, to hear, to obey the Church? Which he proves there at large out of S. Austin, and S. Chryiostome. And is not all this very clear? For, how can I be said to learn of the Church, that which I must know before she can teach me, that is, what Points be Fundamental? Yes, say you, they may learn of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God, and from the Scripture, that such Points are Fundamental, others are not so, and consequently learn, even of the Church, even of your Church, that all is not Fundamental, nay all is not true, which she teaches us to be. 52. Answer: First; can we indeed learn from the Scripture, that such Points are Fundamental, others are not so? How then do you say, it is impossible to give a Catalogue of Fundamental Points, seeing there is means to know that such Points are Fundamental, others are not so? Secondly; You grant what Charity Maintained said; That I cannot learn of the Church, that which I must know before she teaches me; while you tell us, that men learn of the Church one thing, that Scripture is the Word of God, and an other from Scripture, namely, what Points be Fundamental, and so we are so far from learning of the Church that fuch points are Fundamental, that we are as fit to teach her, as she to teach us, which Points in particular be Fundamental, which we learn from Scripture, not from her; just as you teach, that not from the Church, but from Scripture, we learn all particular Points of Faith with certainty, though we receive the Scripture from the Church. Thirdly; If it be a Fundamental truth, that Scripture is the Word of God, I must know it to be such, before I can be assured, that the Church cannot err therein, and so I cannot learn it of the Church; and much less can I learn it of the Church, with certainty, if it be not a Fundamental Point, in which you hold the Church may err: and (Pag: 116. N. 159.) you say, it is not a Fundamental point. Fourthly; Whereas you say, That one may learn 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 believe Scripture to be the word of God, upon the sole Authority of the Church, it is impossible, that I can prove out of Scripture, that all is not true, which the Church teacheth to be so. For, by this means Scripture would be destructive of itself, if we believe it for an Authority, which itself sayeth may affirm a falsehood, and so we cannot believe it even in this particular, that Scripture is the word of God. Yourself say here (N. 36.) An Authority subject to error can be no firm or stable Foundation of my belief in any thing, and if it were in any thing, than this Authority being one and the same in all proposals, I should have the same reason to belicue all, that I have to believe one: and therefore must either do unreasonably, in believing any one thing, upon the sole warrant of this Authority, or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it. Therefore you either do unreasonably in believing the Scripture upon the sole warrant of the Church, or unreasonably in not believing her in all her proposals; and Luther was, and all Protestants, are, unreasonable, 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 learn of a Church how to confute the errors of that Church which taught him: As well as of my Master in Physic, or Mathematics, I may learn those rules and Principles, by which I may confute my Master's erroneous Conclusions. But if the ground which I have laid, and corfirmed out of your own words, be considered, this your instance will prove against yourself. For if I believe those Rules or Principles, because I believe my Master cannot err, and not for the evidence of them in themselves, I do unreasonably, in not believing whatsoever he proposes; Otherwise I may fear he erred even in those Rules, if once I finde him to err in any other thing. Now, we receive with certainty, Scripture for the sole Authority of the Church, and therefore we do unreasonably, if we believe her not, in all her proposals. 53. Your (N. 41.42.) have been answered heretofore. In your (N. 43.) you speak to Ch: Ma. in this manner: In the next place you tell us, out of S. Austin, That that which has been always kept, is most rightly, esteemed to come from the Apostles. Very right, and what then? Therefore the Church cannot err indefining Controversyes. Sir I beseech you when you writ again, do us the favour, to write nothing but Syllogisms, 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 unto you, I am at my wit's end, and have done my best endeavour, to find some glue, or sodder, or cement, or chain, or thread, or any thing to tie this antecedent and this consequent together, and at length am forced to give it over, and cannot do it. 54. Answer; If you were in a condition to reply, I would advise you to write, not Syllogisms, or enthymems, but with truth, Christian modesty, and humility. If there be any obscurity in Charity Maintained, you did not find, but make it, by breaking the thread of his discourse, and disjoining into several Numbers of Sections or Yours, that which is delivered in that one continued (N. 16.) which you impugn. For having proved that according to the grounds of Protestants, they before they address themselves to the Church, must know what Points are Fundamental, they learn 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 sayeth; S. Austin was of a very different mind from Protestants: If sayeth he, (Epist: 118.) the Church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that aught to be done, is a most insolent madness. And in an other place he sayeth (Lib: 4. de Bapt: Chap: 24.) That which the whole Church holds, and is not ordained by Counsels, but hath always been kept, is most rigthly believed to be delivered by Apostolical authority. Now Sr. I beseech you, do us the favour to declare whether these words of S. Austin do not prove, that we are to learn 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 Syllogism, or enthymem, but by a continued discourse, as men are wont to do, which yet might be easily drawn into a Syllogism, or some other Lawful Form of Logical Argument, if need were, as any true Discourse may be so reduced. 55. All that you have (N, 44.45.46.) contains no difficulty which may not be answered, out of the grounds, which I have Laid heretofore. Tertullian is rightly alleged for Traditions in general; but to the Church belongs the office, of judging in particular, what be Lawful, and Apostolical, or divine Traditions, and not humane inventions. Neither can it be prejudicial to Traditions in general, that some have been lost, as I hope you will not deny some Books of Scripture to be Divine, though some have been lost, and some conterfaited. In your (N. 46.) you thought it best to dissemble what Ch. Ma. alleges out of Withaker (De Sacra Script: Pag: 678. concerning an Authority of S. Chrysostom for Traditions) I answer, that this is an inconsiderate speech, and unworthy so great a Father. 56. In your (N. 47.) you spend many words about a sentence of S. Austin, which, that you may overcome with more ease, you with a petty policy, divide from the other places, which Ch: Ma: in the same (N. 16.) citys out of the same Saint, one place strengthening an other. Whosoever reads with due consideration, your long discourse will find, that your aim was, covertly to vent your Socinianism, against the Church, and openly contradict S. Austin, while you pretend to answer the sentences, which Cham ma. cited out of him, which are these (Epist: 119.) the Church being placed betwixt much chaff, and cockle, doth tolerate many things; but yet she doth not approve, nor dissemble, nor do these things which are against Faith, or good life. you say; That because S. Austin says, the Church doth not approve, nor dissemble; nor do these things which are against Faith or good life, Ch. Ma. concludes, that it never hath done so, nor ever can do so. And then you add: But though the Argument hold in Logic a non posse and non esse, yet I never heard, that it is would hold back again a non esse ad non posse. The Church cannot do this, therefore it does it not, follows with good consequence: but the Church does not this, therefore it shall never do it, this I believe will hardly follow: In the Epistle next before to the same I anuarius, writing of the same matter, he hath these words: It remains that the thing you inquire of, must he of that third kind of things, which are different in divers places. Let every one therefore do, 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 up any custom that is against Faith or good manners? Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former. 57 Answer; S. Austin's meaning to be, that the Church neither doth, nor can, approve any thing against Faith, or good life, appears by the very (Epist: 1 18.) next before to the same jannarius, as you speak; where he sayeth: If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that aught to be so done, is a most insolent madness. Where you see the Saint speaks not only de facto, but de jure, what ought to be done; and therefore, as I said, no wonder if you divided the Sentences of S. Austin which you found set down by Charity Maintained 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 universal, as for example, God approves not sin, the Church eres not in fundamental Points of Faith; Works of Christian Piety require the assistance of God's Grace; He that believes not, shall be damned &c:? And indeed how could S. Austin say universally, of all times, and places, without limitation, the Church doth not this, but by supposing, that it is certain, she will never do it, which must imply some particular Privilege of Divine assistance, securing her from doing it. For if he spoke only of a casual, and contingent thing, for a determinate time, he could not be sure of what he affirmed, seeing it might be done in some place, without his knowledge: and whosoever unpartially 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 appears by the Antithesis he puts between the Church, and chaff 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. Austin speaks of things indifferent, and then I grant, that no particular Church can bring up any custom against Faith or good manners, as long as she practices only things indifferent, that is, neither commanded, nor prohibited. But as for the thing itself, S. Austin never speaks of particular Churches, as we have heard him speak of the universal, both in this place, of which we treat, and in other sentences alleged by Ch. Ma. in the said (N. 16.) and the Promises of our Saviour, were made to the universal Church. Yea, you confess that S. Austin speaking even in this place, of those things which he dislikes, says that they were neither contained in Scripture, decreed by Counsels, nor corroborated by the custom of the universal Church; which words declare, that the Scripture, General Counsels, the Custom of the universal Church, and consequently the Church of God, can never be said to approve any such presumptions, as S. Austin calls them; which he never sayeth of particular Churches. And therefore when you say, that superstitions may in time take such deep root, as to pass for universal customs of the Church, you contradict S. Austin; and that the world may see you do it plainly, and as I may say in actu signato, and not only exercito, but to his face, you take his own words, Consuetudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum, corroborated by the custom of the universal Church, and say, that some such superstition had not already, even in S. Austin's time (which circumstance of time is to be noted to show how directly you contradict him) prevailed so fare, as to be corroborated by the custom of the universal Church, who can doubt, that considers, that the practice of Communicating Infants, had even then got the credit, and Authority, not oily of an universal custom, but also of an Apostolic Tradition? And which is more, in other places of your Book, you ascribe this very thing which you call superstition, not only to S. Austin's time, but even to himself, though both imputations be most false; and it is strange that through your whole Book, you do not so much as once offer any one proof thereof. And yet to show how causelessly, and intemperately you declaim against the Church of S. Austin's time, (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. Austin's time) you confess he sayeth, they were not against Faith, and only unprofitable burdens. But of things that are apertissimè contra Fidem, sanamque doctrinam, he expressly declares that the truth is to be professed: Yea even when there is question, not whether a vain thing be to be permitted, but whether a good thing ought to be omitted, he sayeth, Si aliquorum infirmitas ita impediat, ut majora studiosorum lucra sperand a sint, quam calumniatorum detrimenta metuenda, sine dubitatione faciend 'em est. Now if you be so indiscretely zealous, as to say, that no inconvenient things, are in any case to be tolerated, not for fear to offend, or for humane respects, but for avoiding greater evil, you impugn our Saviour (and not his Church only) who (Matth. 13.29.30.) forbids the servants to gather up the cockle, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you may root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest. And you do very wickedly, in comparing the observing this advice of our Blessed Saviour, to that which He reprehended in the Scribes, and Pharises, for teaching (and not only tolerating perforce) vain things, as the washing of pots &c: Did not the Apostles tolerate, for some time, even after they had received the holy Ghost, some Observances of the Mosaical Law, till they became to be deadly, as if without them the law of Christ had not been sufficient to salvation for Gentills converted to Christian Religion? And for that cause S. Paul sayeth, stand, and be not holden in again 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 seeing you confess, that those foolish observances, which S. Austin dislikes, were not against Faith, (as he sayeth expressly, that it cannot be found, quomodo contra Fidem sint) and (which is the main point) that they were never decreed by any general Council, or practised, or approved by the universal Church, which is only our Question. Yourself say (Pag: 301. N. 101.) that S. Austin supposed, that the public service of God, wherein men are to communicate is unpolluted, and no unlawful 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, united in one Communion, professing the same Faith, serving God after the same manner, which was a very great Argument, that they could not have just cause to leave them: according to that of Ter●ullian, variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum, quod autem apud multos unum est, non est erratum sed traditum. Therefore, you must either free the Church of that time, from error, or the Donatists from Schism. I have been longer in answering this Objection, in regard it contains hiddenly more Socinian venom, against the Church, than appears at the first sight: 58. And now it will be easy to answer your (N. 48.) wherein you speak thus to Charity Maintained. But (you will say) not with standing all this, S. Austin here warrants us, that the Church can never either approve or dissemble, or practise any thing against Faith or good life, and so long you may rest securely upon it. What? Do you now grant that S. Austin here warrants us, that the Church can never either approve, & c.? Which is the very thing, which even now you objected against Cham Ma: as if S. Austin had neither said so, not that it could be deduced from what he said. You go forward and say; Yea, but S. Austin tells us in the same place, that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vain superstitions, and those urged more severely than the commandments of God: and whether superstition be a sin or no, I appeal to our Saviour's words before cited and to the consent of your Schoolmen. Besides if we consider it right, we shall find, that the Church is not truly said only to tolerate these things, but rather, that a part, and a fare greater publicly avowed and practised them, and urged them upon 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 do so, as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it, and yet do so, I desire you to inform me. 59 Answer; you seek to deceive the ignorant, by leading them into a misunderstanding 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 to grow with the wheat, least untimely weeding the cockle, spoil the good corn; that is, of two unavoidable evils, it is not only lawful, but laudable, yea necessary, to choose the lesser, which, taken formally with comparison to the greater is in some sort, good, as in some proportion I declared heretofore, speaking of the case of invincible, and inculpable Perplexity, as here the Church is necessitated, without any fault of hers, either to suffer a less, or do a greater evil, by untimely, and fruiteless rigour. Did not the Apostles; and must not all Prelates permit many sins of divers kinds, which they cannot hinder without greater damage to the Christian Commonwealth, unless they were Omnipotent, to rule the wills of men, and effectually draw them, only to good? But you speak very unworthily of the universal Church of Christ, when you would make the world believe, that the fare greater part of Christians in S. Austin's time, was guilty of vain superstitions, and avowed and practised them, yea or even dissembled them in silence, when prudent Charity, and zeal, could dictate the contrary. As for your parity, between the whole Church, and particular members thereof, it hath been confuted heretofore, infallibility being promised to the Church, not to private persons; and you might make the same Argument, to prove that the Apostles, might err in matters, which they delivered as Points of Faith, and yet remain parts of the Church, as well as particular men might err, and remain members of the Church, if their errors were inculpable. If you say the Apostles were to teach others, and so could not err, even inculpably; you know we say the same of the Church, which is Judge of Controversyes, and was before Scripture, and from which we receive true Tradition, Scripture, and the interpretation thereof. But if we suppose, that those superstitious persons chanced to err, in any Point against Faith, and remained obstinate therein, after sufficient Declaration of the Church's Doctrine to the contrary, than they became formal Heretics, excluded from being members of the Church, and so cannot be said, to be either the greater, or lesser, or any, part thereof. 60. In your (N. 49.) You say: But now after all this ado, what if S. Austanen says not this which is pretended of the Church, viz, that she neither approves, nor dissembles, nor practices any thing against Faith or good life, but only of good men of the Church? Certainly though some Copies read as you would have it, yet you should not have dissembled, that others 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 approve, nor dissemble, nor practise. 61. Answer: But who, beside yourself, hath made all this ado? Which certainly you would never have made, unless you had believed, that the Common Reading goes as Charity Maintained citys it, and for that cause you found it necessary, to take so much pains, spend so many words, and make so much ado, 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 condemn, can the margin acquit him? I have procured to know what divers Editions have, 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 Louvain hath it in the margin. But you are much mistaken, if you conceive, that our Argument loses its force, though we should read, nec bonus approbat. For (to omit your own manner of arguing, else 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 said to approve, or dissemble, or practise those things) we ground our proof, on such considerations, as I touched above, that the Church is said only, to tolerate, and is contradistinguished, from those, who approve, or practise the said abuses; as also she is opposed, to cock●e and chasse; yea, yourfelf confess, that S. Austin affirms, that they were neither contained in Scripture, de●reed by Counsels, nor corroborated by the Custom of the universal Church; Which shows how innocent she was, from being obnoxious to that imputation, of approving those presumptions: Which also appears by the whole drift of S. Austin's discourse; where still he makes a difference between the Church, and those erring persons. Besides, when you would have him say, A good man will neither approve, nor &c: by a good man, you must not understand, every pious, or devout, or even holy person, who may be subject to such abuses, as S. Austin speaks of; seeing you cite him saying; Multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum, vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo. Many of these things for fear of scandalising many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, I dare not freely disollow: But by good men, you must of necessity understand, such as have zeal, with knowledge, such as are of a right and settled true judgement, in matters belonging to Faith, and Religion, and certainly such they cannot be, in the opinion of S. Augustine, who could think, that the Church can approve, any error, or superstition; seeing we have heard him say (Ep: 118.) If the Church through the whole world practise any of these things, to dispute whether that aught to be done, is a most insolent madness. Will you have an understanding, good man, to be guilty of most insolent madness? If a good man cannot approve such things, much less, in truth, and in the opinion of S. Austin, the Church could do it. So that read S. Austin as you please, the sentence, which Charity Maintained alleged, proves the infallibility of God's Church; neither can you find any means to avoid this inference, except by unmasking yourself, and saying as you do here (N. 44.) To deal ingeniously with you and the world, I am not such an idolater of S. Austin, as to think a thing proved sufficiently, because he says it, or that all his sentences o'er oracles. And so I may return your own words, and say: But now after all this ado, what if S. Austin says what Charity Maintained affirms him to say, seeing you do not much regard what S. Austin says? 62. For answer to your (N. 53.) I say that Charity Maintained had reason to affirm, that seeing no private persons ought to presume, that they are endued with greater infallibility, than the Church, which Protestants teach to be infallible only in Fundamental Points, they cannot be sure, that they attain the true sense of Scripture, unless they first know, what points in particular be Fundamental; because in other they may erte, as they say the Church may. Besides it hath been showed, that, in the Principles of Protestants, it cannot be convinced, that Scripture is infallible, except only in fundamental Points, and so men cannot rely on Scripture, unless first they be sure, what points be Fundamental. Neither is there the same reason, for understanding (not the bare words, but) the sense of Scripture, intended by the Holy Ghost, as there is for understanding some plain place in Aristotle, or conceyving some evident natural truths, which are connatural to humane reason, and are not capable of different senses, as the words of Scripture are. Which may be proved, even by the Examples which you bring as evident, as I have showed heretofore, that they are not so: Neither can any Protestants learn 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 therefore you say only Protestants may be certain enough of the Truth and certainty of one of the places which you allege as evident; but your enough, is not enough, for the absolute certainty of Divine Faith. And therefore Charity Maintained did you no wrong at all, and much less a palpable injury, as you speak, in saying, you cannot, with certainty, learn of Scripture, fundamental Points of Faith; which is manifest by the examples which you say are Truth's Fundamental, because they are necessary parts of the Gospel, and yet it is evident, that Protestents cannot agree about their meaning, as I have 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 sins may be obtained: That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body. Which are the Instances which here you give, as Truths both Fundamental, and evident. 63. Your (N. 51.) hath been answered in several occasions. And all that you say (N. 52.) is directly nothing to the purpose, but passes from objects considered in themselves (whereof Protestants confess some to be Fundamental, others not) to accidental circumstances; as if Protestants did differ not in Fundamental points, or in assigning a particular Catalogue of them, but only in accidental circumstances, of ignorance, repentance, and the like. But of this I have spoken heretofore: as also I have confuted your similitude about a medicine of twenty ingredients &c: which therefore I think needless to repeete. 64. Your (N. 53.) I have answered in divers places. Your (N. 54.) is nothing but a long digression, to which the particular Answer would require a whole Book, or volume, directly against the scope of this Work (which is only to treat in general of the Church, and Scripture) and you know very well, that Catholic Writers have fully answered all your Demands; as also you know, how many doubts might be proposed to Protestants about Scripture, which to them is the only rule of Faith, if I had a mind to degrees. Your (N. 55.56.57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.65.) have been answered at large. 95. I desire the Reader to peruse the (N. 21.) of Charity Maintained, and he will find that you make an argument, as his, which is nothing like his discourse. He sayeth not as you (N. 66.) cited him in these words: We may not departed from the Church absolutely and in all things; Therefore we may not departed 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 departed from the Church of Christ, no more than from Christ himself: But if the Church could err in any points of Faith, they may and must forsake her in those, and if such errors should fall out to be concerning the Church's liturgy, Sacraments etc. they must leave her external Communion, which being essential 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 essential to make one be united to her? Your saying, that a man may leave the vice of his friend, or brother, and yet not leave his friend, or brother, is impertinent, seeing vices are not essential to men, as external Communion is, to make one a member of the Church. 66. You object; what Dr. Potter sayeth of the Catholic Church (P. 75.) he extends presently after, to every 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 Doctor will not contradict himself; according to his judgement, the Catholic Church cannot fall into error 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 affirm, that no particular Church can be forsaken; he must say, that no such Church can err in any point necessary to salvation. For if she did so err, her Communion must be forsaken, and I have showed external Communion, to be essential 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 himself. Since therefore they absolutely forsake the Church, who disagree from Her in profession of Faith, and divide themselves from her external Communion, you must grant, that they can no more do so, than they can divide themselves from Christ. I know not, to what purpose, or upon what occasion, you say to Ch: Ma: In other places, you confess his doctrine to be, that even the Catholic Church may err in Points not fundamental, which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself. 68 Your manner of alleging the words of Charity Maintained in your (N. 68) gives me still, occasion to wish you had alleged them, as you found them. You make Charity Maintained speak thus: Dr. Potter either contradicts himself, or else must grant the Church infallible; because he says, if we did not differ from the Roman, we could not agree with the Catholic, which saying supposes the Catholic Church cannot err. And then you say with your usual modesty: This Argument to give it the right name, is an obscure and intriate nothing. I confess that reading the words, which you impute to Charity Maintained, 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 descent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholic. These words cannot be true, unless he presupposes that the Church truly Catholic, cannot err in Points not fundamentall. For if she may err in such points, the Roman Church which he affirms to err only in points not fundamentall, may agree with the Church truly Catholic, if she likewise may err in points not fundamentall. This is the Argument of Ch: Ma: and is it not clear, that if the Church Catholic can err, for example, in the Doctrines of Purgatory, Invocations of Saints, real presence, and the like, as de facto Luther and his followers pretend she did err, and that they were reformers of such errors, seeing the Roman Church may, and doth hold the same Doctrines, the Church universal and the Roman Church shall agree in the same (pretended) errors, and so Potter said not truly, that if we agree with the Roman Church, (for example about Purgatory, Prayers, to saints &c:) we cannot agree with the Church Catholic? Will you deny the Axiom; Quae sunt eadem uni tertio sunt eadem inter se? If then the universal, and the Roman Church agree in the belief, of errors (as you falsely term them) do they not agree one with an other? And so, contrary to Potter's affirmation it must be said; If we did descent from these opinions of the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church Catholic, if once it be supposed, that the Church holds those, or the like unfundamentall errors, as you grant she may; And further it would follow, that seeing Protestants descent from the Roman Church, they cannot agree with the Catholic Church. But let us hear how you make good your censure. 69. You say; let us suppose, either that the Catholic Church may err but doth not, but that the Roman actually doth; or that the Catholic Church may err, 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 Church's infallibility) a man may truly say, unless I descent in some opinions from the Roman Church, I cannot agree with the Catholic? Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon Dr. Potter, or do that which you condemn in him, and be driven to say, that the same man may held some errors with the Church of Rome, and at the same time with the Catholic Church not hold but condemn them. For otherwise in neither of these cases it is possible for the same man at the same time, to agree with the Roman and the Catholic. 70. Answer, Your conscience cannot but witness, that the Doctor when he said: If we did not descent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Cathelique, did not speak of accidental cases, or voluntary suppositions, such as you put; but meant and spoke absolutely, that if we did not descent from the Present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholic. For if he meant only of contingent cases, without regard to any particular advantage, or prerogative of the Church universal, he might have made suppositions, directly contrary to yours; that the Roman Church may err, but doth not, but the universal actually doth; or that the Roman Church doth err in some few things, but the Catholic errs in many more. For if once it be granted the Catholic Church to err; to say she may err in many, or few, is a voluntary, ungrounded, conjecture, or divination, and nothing to any purpose. Nay seeing, if once the Catholic Church be supposed to err, she may multiply errors 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 Doctors words may be in a perpetual alteration, to day falls, to morrow true; which either was fare from his meaning, or his meaning was not only impertinent, but against his own scope and Intention, which was to make the universal Church as it were the Model or Rule to judge of the necessity, which Protestants had to forsake the Roman Church, by reason of her dissenting from the Church Catholics which had been no good reason, if the universal Church may err, and err as much and more, than the Roman, or any other partioular Church. Which appears also by these words of the Doctor in the same (Pag: 97.) The Catholic Church is careful to ground all her declarations upon the divine Authority of Gods written word. And therefore whosoever wilfully opposed a judgement so well grounded, is justly esteemed an Heretic. And (P: 132.) he sayeth: For us: the mistaker (nor his he Masters) will never prove, that we oppose either any declaration of the Catholic Church, or any Fundamental or other truth of Scripture, and therefore he doth unjustly charge us with Schism or Heresy. Do not these say, attribute more to the universal, than to particular Churches; and more than a merely casualty, that either she doth not actually err, or else errs in fewer things, than the present Roman Church? And upon the whole matter, is not that true, which Charity Maintained (N. 22.) said, That D. Potter must either grant, that the Catholic Church cannot err in Points not Fundamental, or confess a plain contradiction to himself in the said words: If we did not descent in some opinions from the present Roman Church, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholic? Would not Protestants take it in ill part, if one should say: If we did not descent in some opinions from Protestants, we could not agree with the Church truly Catholic? And yet according to your explication, and suppositions, it could not be ill taken, because either the Church might be supposed not to err actually or in some few things, but that the Protestants err in many more, it being manifest that some of them err. By the way, when Potter sayeth: (For us: the Mistaker will never prove that we oppose any Declaration of the Catholic Church, or any truth of Scripture) I would know, whom he understand by, us? 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 have no certain 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 soul to any of them all. Your Conclusion (Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon Dr Potter, or do that etc.) is obscure; but I am sure it is answered, seeing it goes upon your falls explication of the Doctor's words. 71. Your proceeding (N. 69.) puts me upon a necessity, of entreating the Reader, to peruse the (N. 23.) of Charity Maintained which evidently demonstrates, that it was wholly impertinent, for you to answer the places, which He sayeth, are wont to be all edged out of Scripture for the infallibility of God's Church; and your labour, and pains taken therein, are lost in order to any other effect, except (contrary to your desires) to stregthen the saying of Charity Maintained, which was; That our very difference about the meaning of these Texts, shows the impossibility of agreement in matters of Faith by Scripture alone. To which purpose He sets down, what sense Catholics give them, and the different interpretation of Protestants, from Catholics, and from one and other. While therefore, you profess to confute the interpretation of Catholics (but indeed impugn also that of most Protestants, and of Dr. Potter in particular) what do you else, but make good the said Affirmation, and intention, and proof of Cha: Ma: that Scripture alone is not sufficient to interpret itself? And you could not but see, that Charity Maintained did not allege any Text, to prove the Church's infallibility, but only to show the difficulty of Scripture taken alone, by those examples, which he alleges, and Protestants interpret in a different sense from Catholics, and in which you differ from both. So that, even by your disagreeing from Catholics, in the meaning of those places, you in fact, and Deeds, prove the truth of that which your adversary affirmed: and the more you object against Charity Maintained, the more you prejudice yourself, and make good these his words: If words cannot persuade you, that in all controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church; at least yield your assent to Deeds. Which thing considered, I have no obligation at all, to examine your Objections, against the interpretation of those Texts in favour of the Church's infallibility, for which purpose they were not produced by Charity Maintained, but only to prove, by an Argument drawn 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 Catholics; and therefore your interpretations prove nothing, because they prove 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 certain objections, in a different letter, as if they were made eypressly by Ch: Ma: and yet I find them not in him, whatsoever they be in themselves. Then, (N. 70.) you say; The Church may err and yet the gates of Hell not privaile against her. 73. Answer; you know we deny this, and in divers occasions have given good reasonsfor our denial. And what can be more inconsistent, with being of a true Church, than error against Faith, which Faith is the most essential constitutive, of the Church, or congregation of Faithful people. Yourself teach, that every error repugnant to Divine Revelation, is damnable of itself; and what can set the gates of Hell more open, than damnable sins? Neither can you fly to ignorance, whereof you can have no certainty, especially for the whole universal Church, and yet we are certain by our Saviour's Promise, that the gates of Hell, cannot prevail against her; whereof we could not be certain, if the Church may err damnably, and be excused only by ignorance, which, as I said, is an uncertain 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 err, even by ignorance, but must be believed to be infallible, in all matters, belonging to Faith; seeing otherwise we cannot believe her with certainty in any point, fundamental, or not fundamental, as you confess, in this Chapt. (N. 36.) that unless the Church be infallible in all things we cannot rationally believe her for her own sake, and upon her own word and Authority in any thing. For an authority subject to error can be no firm 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 always, without fail propose so much of God's Revelation, as is sufficient to bring men to heaven; for otherwise it will not be the visible Church, yet it may sometimes add to this Revelation things superfluous, nay gurtfull, nay in themselves damnable. And in this Chapter (N. 78.) you say: That the true Church always 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, than 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 defective 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 have many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice. Out of these say of yours, this argument offers itself: The Church is essentially a Teacher of all necessary truths (And consequently we are to believe her in such points;) But the Church cannot be believed in necessary points, unless we believe her to be infallible, in all that she proposes as matter of Faith: This also is our Doctrine; Therefore we must believe her to be infallible in all points: So that in denying the universal infallibility of the Church, you contradict both truth, and your own Assertions. 74. And here I must put you in mind, of your saying, that there is difference between being infallible in Fundamentals, and an infalllible Guide in Fundamentals, and yet we have 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, seeing you say (P. 105. N. 139.) To make any Church an: infallible Guide in Fundamentals, 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 said 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 certain Denomination: To which Proposition, I subsume; But we have heard you say that it is of the essence of the Church to be a Teacher of all necessary Truths, and that she shall always without fail propose so much as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven; Therefore 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 here (N. 78.) If we grant that the Apostle calls the Catholic Church the pillar and ground of Truth, and that not only because it should, but because it always shall and will be so, yet after all this you have done nothing, unless you, can show that by Truth here is certainly meant, 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 Fundamentals, would be to make it Infallible in all things, which she proposes and requires to be believed; seeing you say also, that although it were granted that S. Paul 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 own words, related by me, in this small compass? 76. First; The Church is an infallible Teacher in Fundamentals, and yet is not an infallible guide; or if you grant her to be an infallible Guide; then Secondly; you say; to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, 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 Fundamentals, 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 Fundamentals, and an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, seeing you teach that she is both infallible in Fundamentals, and a Teacher of them? Fourthly. How do 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, than any thing can be a man, and not be reasonable. And yet in this Chapter (N. 39) to prove, that there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentals, and an infallible Guide in Fundamentals, you say; A man that were destitute of all means 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 repair 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 accidental, 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 essential to the Church to be an infallible Teacher, or Guide in Funmentalls, which you say she cannot be, without an universal infallibility in all Points, seeing every error destroys that universal infallibility, which is essential to such a Teacher as the Church, how can you say, that every error doth not destroy the Church, but that she may err, and yet the gates of hell not prevail against her? To what purpose then, do you talk of eyes, and hands, which are not essential or necessary parts of a man; or of biles and botches, which are accidental to his body, and not necessaryly destructive thereof, as you must suppose; whereas infallibility is essential to the Church of Christ, and is destroyed by error, which cannot possibly consist with infallibility, that is, with certainty never to err. Into how may inextricable difficulties, and contradictions do you cast yourself, upon a resolution, not to acknowledge the infallibility of God's Church, the only means to clear all these perplexityes? And how inconsequently, and perniciously, and you compare botches and biles, to error against Faith, which you confess to be damnable sins, and without repentance absolutely inconsistent with salvation? 77. But to return to the main point. If the Church were not universally infallible, Christian Faith could not be infallible, as I proved heretofore, and so the gates of Hell, should prevail against Christianity, which by that means, should come to want, a thing absolutely necessary to salvation, necessitate medij, to wit, divine infallible Faith. Your Parity between a particular man, or congregation, and the universal Church, hath been answered heretofore; and is confuted, by what we have said here; that infallibility is essential to the universal Church; and nothing can exist without that which is essential to it, but no such Privilege of infallibility, is necessary, or is promised to particular men, or Churches. Finally, seeing that according to Potter, and other Protestants, the Promise of our Saviour, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, must be understood of the whole Church, as well Primitive, as of consequent Ages; by what evident Text of Scripture, can you prove, that the same words, must have different significations, in order to the Primitive Church (which was infallible in all Points of Faith) and the universal Church of following Ages? As in a like occasion I said heretofore. Yourself (N. 72.) speak to Charity Maintained thus: unless you will say, which is most ridiculous, that when our Saviour said, He will teach you &c: and he will show 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 seem most ridiculous, that in the same sentence, the same words, the gates of Hell shall not privaile, must signify two different kinds, of not prevailing (one against fundamentall, and an other against unfundamentall errors) in order to one, and the same word, Church? 78. In your (N. 71.) you pretend to answer the Text which Ch: Ma: sayeth may be alleged 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 cometh, 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 learn it if he will not, so that he must and shall, whether be will or no. Now who can ascertain 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 alleged by Dr. Potter, to prove that the Church cannot err, against any Fundamental Truth. Which limitation I have confuted already, and jointly your first Answer. Your Second, and Third are directly against the Doctor, who (Pag: 151.) teaches that the Promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance, are intended to the Church Catholic, and they are to be extended only to Points Fundamental. And then he alleges the said 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 verified in the Church universal. Now if the Church cannot err 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 affirms, but to them only, as you say, how could the Doctor prove by them the Infallibility of the Church for all Fundamentals? Can a Text of Scripture prove that to which it nothing belongs? As well, by this Text, interpreted as you do, he might have proved you, or himself, or any other infallible in Fundamental 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 maintain the cause of Protestants, and defend Potter's Book. You are greatly mistaken, and offend against the known 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 been declared more than once. Do not yourself tell us here, that the said 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 have 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 Original is hodegesei which signify to be a guide, and director only, not to compel or necessitate. But what is this to any purpose against us, who teach nothing against Freewill by our Doctrine of the infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost? And yet I must say, that you use fraud, by writing so, as if the word did signify a guide or director only, with exclusion of being necessitated, whereas the Greek 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 do, either by leading, and leaving one to his liberty to follow, or by forcing him to follow his guidance: and so the places which you allege out of Scripture, of men that had eyes to see and would not see, are to no purpose, except to engage you, to answer them in case of the Apostles, whom, I suppose, you will not deny, to have been secured from error, both sufficiently, and effectually. Yea you take much (unprofitable) pains to prove, that the said 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 universal. 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 bear the place of the Church, and for her good receive some Power or privilege, and not merely with relation to their own persons. And therefore, although some words in the places which you allege, 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 Baptising, which our Saviour enjoined (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 said, (Mark 16.14.) Last he appeared to those Eleven as they sat at the table, and he exprobrated their incrudelity, and hardness of hart, because they did not believe them that had seen him risen again: And (N. 15.16.) he said to them, Going into the world preach the Gospel to all Creatures, He that believes and is baptised, shall be saved. Hear you see, that although some circumstances be proper to the Apostles, as sitting at table, and incrudelity, yet it does not follow, that all must concern them only; as, that preaching, and baptising, 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 Saviour's speaking to them) and yet his command, (Going, teach ye all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 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 personal to the Apostles, and we must not say, that penance to be preached in his name, and remission of sins unto all Nations (as is said N. 47.) belonged to the Apostles only, though it be expressly said, beginning from Jerusalem, which seems proper to the Persons of the Apostles, and yet Preaching Penance (a thing common to the whole Church) is set down in the same verse with (beginning from Jerusalem,) which was personal to the Apostles. Thus, (Joan. 20.) Some particulars are spoken, and done to the Apostles only; as (N. 21.) He said to them again: Peace be to you; and (N. 22.) He breathed upon them; and yet (N. 23.) he gives them Power to forgive sins; which Power did not cease with the Death of the Apostles. These instances show, that you must answer your own 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, allege out of S. John, for the infallibility of the Church, must be appropriated to the Apostles, for the substance, because some circumstances concern them alone; and that we must prudently distinguish, between those two kinds of things; as certainly not to be led into any error 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, sometime considered as public persons, and with relation to the Church, appears, 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 Baptising N. 19) Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world, which signify, that he would be with them in their Successors, 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 live to the world's end; as you say here; Did he, or could he have said to your Church, which then was not extant, I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear 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 world's 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 live to the world's end, in their successors, and so our Saviour's promise is fulfilled, of being always with the Apostles in their Successors. 81. You object to Charity Maintained, that In the very text by him alleged, there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to. For there it is said, the Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth, but also will show you things to come. But this is answered by what hath been said 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 have showed above. Besides, Christian Faith teaches us many things to come; as the coming of Antichrist; the general judgement, and signs precedent to it; The Resurrection of the dead; The eternal 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 understood interpreters of Scriptures, because per eas futura justorum gaudia, malorumque supplicia hominibus praenunciant. If by showing things to come, you understand the Gift of Prophecy; Do you hold it as certain that every one of the Apostles had that Gift, as that they were infallible in matters of Faith? Are you certain, that every Apostle, could have written the Apocalypse of S. John? So that indeed if you will needs have a full parity, between being led into all Truth, and knowing of things to come, you will be found, not to be certain that the Apostles were infallible in matters of Faith. Morover, it is to be observed, that to be infallible was essential to the office of Apostolate, or teaching the Church, as the Gift of Prophecy is accidental, and was communicated to others, as we read in the Acts; as also it was accidental to speak all tongues, to have been called immediately by our Saviour (as S. Mathias was not, and yet was an Apostle) to have inflicted Censure of Excommunication, with some visible punishment, and the like extraordinary ornaments, or Priviledgs': And therefore no wonder, if infallibility in matters of Faith be communicated to the Church, though the knowledge of things to come, were not: though indeed de facto, God hath, and ever will, communicate the Gift of Prophecy, to his Church, as is certain by the undoubted Authority of the best writers of all Ages. You see now, that neither Charity Maintained, nor other Catholic writers, cite the said text by halves, as you affirm (N. 72.) seeing the latter clause (of showing things to come) makes nothing against them, nor altars the sense of the text, as I have showed. But now good Sr. I beseech you reflect, whom you impugn, while you would persuade men, that Charity Maintained, and generally our writers of controversies, when they entreat of this Argument, cite this text perpetually by hafes: seeing Dr. Potter (Pag: 151.) citys this very same place and (leaves out those words will show you things to come) for which you accuse us of citing that sentence by halves: especially if you call to mind, that he brings that text to prove, that the Church cannot fail in Fundamental points, which as I said were no proof, if it were meant of the Apostles only, as you would prove it was, by the words, omitted by the Doctor no less than by C: Ma: (he will show you things to come.) To all which I add; that seeing you say, that text concerned the Apostles only, it must signify an infallibility both in Fundamental, and unfundamentall Points, and therefore seeing the Doctor confesses it to be verified in the universal 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 seek to divert me to the controversyes about public service in an unknown tongue, and communion under both kinds. But you know, Catholic Writers have answered, all that can be objected against us, in these two questoins; and whatsoever you can allege, if it were of any moment, as it cannot be, it could only show, that Scripture, even in that which to you seems so plain, is indeed obscure, seeing so many learned, holy, and laborious men, see no such evidence, as you pretend; yea they are certain, that your pretended clear interpretation, is an Heresy, Yet because you allege against us without any cause a greek word edoke, I must not omit to tell you with truth, that Protestants in this Point of the Sacrament, shamefully falsify the Greek Text, (1. Cor. 11. V 27.) saying in their Translation; Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord: whereas the Greek word signify vel, or: and so you should say; Whosoever shall eat this bread, Or drink the cup etc. which fraud you use, to prove the necessity of Communion in both kinds. 83. Your (N. 73.74.) contain no difficulty, which hath not been answered. Only I may note, that you put some Objection in a different letter, which in Cham Ma. I find not. The Promise, that the Holy Ghost was to remain, with the Apostles for ever, was not restrained to, yet is verified in them, because they remain for ever in their successors, as you will say, they remain in their Writings. Your friged interpretation of ever, that is, for the time of their lives, is confuted by what hath been cited, out of S. Matthew (Chap. 28.20.) I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world; And surely, the end of the world, signify a larger extent, than the end of their lives, Nay, you are not content with limiting all Promises made to them, to the term of their life, but it seems you make it not absolute, but only conditional, even for that short tyme. For you say, The spirit would abide with them, if they kept their station, unto 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 do (as your, if, supposes it to be) then according to your Divinity, they might fail, and all Promise, made to them prove ineffectual: neither can we be certain, that de facto, they have not failed, and fallen into error, in their preaching, and writing Scripture. Nay, do you not teach, and labour to prove, 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, unto the very end of their lives,) did err in a command clearly revealed to them, about preaching the Gospel to Gentills? How then was that Promise performed, if it were absolute? And if only conditional; you grant no more to them than to any other; neither can we be certain, that they have not erred in other things, as you say, they erred in that. Your alleging some Texts, to prove, that the word (ever) may be taken for the whole time of a man's life, is not to any purpose, unless you had also proved, that it is so understood, in the place of which we speak. (Joan 14.16.) And seeing even by this example, the same words are capable of different senses, and that Protestants cannot possibly give 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 threats, that you will work wonders, and that we may not be so much overseen, as to pass them without due reflection, you say to Charity Maintained; This will seem strange news to you at first hearing, and not fare from a prodigy. But it is not strange, that here you do that, which you do in divers other occasions, that is, impeach the infallibility of the Apostles, and consequently, deprive their preaching, and writing, and all Christian Religion, of all certainty; though I grant it to be very strange 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 conditional promise made to the Apostles, If they kept their station; here you declare clearly, and at large; that the Promise of which S. John speaks, was appropriated to the Apostles (as you speak) and that, it is not absolute, but as you expressly say, most clearly and expressly conditional; being both in the words before restrained to those only, that love God and keep his commandments: And in the words after flatly denied to all whom the scriptures style by the name of the world, that is, as the very Antithesis gives us plainly to understand, to all wicked and worldly men. Behold the place entire as it is set down in your own Bible. If you love me keep my commandments, and I will ask my Father, and he shall give you an other Paracle●e, that he may abide with your for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive. And then, speaking of the Pope, you say; We can have no certainty that the Spirit of Truth is promised to him but upon supposal, that he performs the condition, where unto the promise of the Spirit of Truth is expressly limited, viz. That he love God and keep his commandments; and of this, not knowing the Pope's heart, we can have no certainty at all. Doth not this interpretation, and discourse, clearly declare, that we can have no certainty of the Apostles infallibility, because not knowing their hearts we can have no certainty at all, that when they preached, and wrote, they did love God, and keep his commandments? Besides; in the doctrine of Protestants, we cannot be certain by certainty of Faith, that the Apostles kept the commandments, except first we believe Scripture and yet we cannot believe Scripture itself, except first we believe the Apostles to be infallible, and to have kept that condition of keeping the commandments; Therefore we must believe Scripture, before we believe, the Apostles to keep the commandments, and be infallible; and we must believe the Apostles to be infallible and to keep the commandments, before we believe Scripture; which is an inextricable Circle; and a contradiction implying finally, that we believe Scripture for itself (which you confess no wise man will affirm) 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 itself. Wherefore you must either renounce this Interpretation, of a conditional Promise, made, yea (as you expressly affirm) Appropriated to the Apostles, or else bid Scripture, and all Christianity, far well. And so you cannot have certainty of this particular, that God requires the said condition of love, 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 love me keep my commandments) from the following words (And I will ask my Father, and he shall give 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 love me keep my commandments; And then (N. 16.) And I will a●k the Father, and he will give you an other Paraelete. Where it appears that the condition is not; If you love me, I will ask the Father, and he will give you etc. as you set it down, and there upon affirm that, the Promise is restrained to those only that love God and keep his commandments; but the condition, or rather Assirmation, or Consequence, is this: If you love me, keep my commandments: 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 love me, keep my commandments, render a perfect sense, is manifest of itself, and by the like Texts of Scripture, as in the same Evangelist (Cap. 15. N. 14.) You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you; and (V 10.) If you keep my precepts, you shall abide in my Love.. 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 said; (Christ N. 15. requireth love and Obedience. 16. Promiseth the Holy Ghost the comforter) without expressing any dependence of the said Promise (V. 15.) upon love and obedience. V 16. As also Joan: 16.13. (which Text is alleged both by Charity Maintained and Dr. Potter) it is said without any condition when he, the Spirit of Truth cometh, he shall teach you all Truth. And (Matth: 16.18.) these words The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her which both Charity Maintained, and the Doctor cite, are absolute. And (Matth: 28. V 20.) behold (which particle holy Scripture is wont to use, when it speaks of some great, or strange thing) I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Which wordsare both absolutely, without any condition, and cannot be restrained to the lives of the Apostles: and therefore, dato, non concesso, that the Promise had been made to the Apostles, upon condition of Loving God; it does not follow, that the same condition, must be required in every one of their successors; but for the merit of the Apostles, it may be communicated to others, in whom the Apostles live, and so what is granted to them, is a reward bestowed upon the Apostles; as heroical 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, their first progenitors would never have attained that Dignity, or Prerogative, 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 commandments, were a necessary condition for receyving Infallibility; yet you will never be able to prove, by any evident Text of Scripture, that it is necessary, in respect of every particular person; it being sufficient, that it be verified of the Church Catholic, of which even Dr. Potter (Pag: 10.) sayeth; that it is not improbable only, but merely impossible, the Catholic Church should be without Charity. Our blessed Saviour, before he encharged the care of his Church, upon S. Peter, exacted of him a triple profession of love; and will you therefore have none to be lawful Pastors, except such as love God above all things, and are in state of Grace, and free from deadly sin? Have you a mind to fetch from Hell, the condemned, and seditious heresy of Wicliffe; That, If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sin, he doth not indeed, either give Orders, consecrate, or Baptise? 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 therefore 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 certain, that Scripture is of infallible Authority, than that every Canonical Writer did love God, and keep the commandments, when they wrote Scripture, yea of some Books of Scripture some call in Question, who were the writers of them. I will not here stay, to put you in mind, that it is common among Protestants, to deny the posfibility of keeping the commandments; must they therefore deny the infallibility of the Apostles? They are so fare from doing so, that they hold the Church to be infallible in Fundamentals, notwithstanding the impossibility, in their opinion, of keeping the commandments! 85. Now I hope it appears, that your two Syllogisms go upon a false ground, that the promise made to the Apostles is conditional, and so prove nothing. As also, that you breathe too much gall, and vanity, in saying, that Charity Maintained and generally all our Writers of Controversy, by whom this Text is urged, with a bold Sacrilege, 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 citys this Text, and leaves out more than Charity Maintained omitts, cutting of not only the head and foot, but also the breast and middle thereof, thereby showing his judgement, 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 join head and foot and the whole Body confusedly together, which is no less monstrous than to cut them of, but do indeed utterly destroy, and deprive it of all infalllibility by questioning the infallibility of the Apostles, from whom this very Text must receive, all the certainty it can have. Do not I maintain 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 Maintained stands in need of defence, seeing he alleged those texts which the Doctor citys only to show, in deeds, that Scripture alone, is not sufficient to interpret itself, whereas D. Potter brought them absolutely to prove the infallibility of the Church, in all Fundamental Points, which is the common tenet of Protestants, and yet you overthrew it by making our Saviour's Promise not absolute, but depending upon a voluntary, uncertain condition. 86. In your (N. 76.) you endeavour, divers ways, to elude the Argument, which is wont to be alleged for the infallibility of the Church, taken out of S. Paul (1. Tim: 3.15.) where the Church is said to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth. 87. First, you say; Charity Maintained, is somewhat too bold with S. Paul. For it is neither impossible nor improbable, these words, the Pillar and ground of truth, may have reference not to the Church, but to Timothy. But this exposition, is not only against Calvin, and other Protestants, who expressly refer those words to the Church, but also it cannot well agree with the Greek: And even the Protestant English Translation reads it as we do, for as much as belongs to our present purpose. Howesoever, it appears, by this very example, how hard, and impossible it is, to determine Controversyes by Scripture alone, which every one, will find means to interpret, for his best advantage, though it be not done 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 Primitive Apostolical Church, was universally 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 applied to the same thing. Cornelius à Lapide, here, sayeth: 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 said, to be a House, and a Gate, in divers 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 between a House, and a Pillar, than between 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 conceive, that the Church should be the House, wherein Gods resides, and reigns, by infallibly assisting it, and yet be a Pillar of Truth, to teach others? Especially seeing God assists the Church, to the end she may teach others? Passiuè taught; Actiuè, teaches; as yourself avouch here (N. 78.) that it is the essence of the Church, to be always the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth. But yourself profess not to rely upon this interpretation, and therefore, 88 Secondly; you put us in mind, that the Church which S. Paul here speaks of, was that in which Timothy conversed, and that was a particular Church, and not the Roman, and such we will not have to be universally infallible. 89. Answer; Although S. Paul spoke to Timothy, who conversed in the particular Church of Ephesus, whereof he was Bishop; yet he puts him in mind, of his duty, by a Motive and Reason, more universal, and certain (as Proofs are wont to be) than could be taken, from that particular Church alone, that is, he gave a Reason, which did concern it, as a member of the universal Church, which being the Pillar, and Ground of Truth, could not but exact of Him, and every Bishop, a zeal to imitate, with care and uprightness, their mother the Church, in conserving, for their part, that Truth, which the Church teaches, and from which she cannot swerve. To which very purpose, Cornelius à Lapide upon these words (Quae est columna & firmamentum veritatis) sayeth: Addit hoc Apostolus, ut innuat Timotheo, magno cum studio ad haereses & errores devitandoes & refellendos, purae veritati intelligendae, & praedicandae in Ecclesia, sibi incumbendum esse, adeoue se non judaizantium, aliorumue Novantium, sed Ecclesiae fidem sequi & praedicare debere, utpote quae sit basis veritatis. And so I may retort your Argument, and say: S. paul speaks 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 say the universal Church is) Therefore S. Paul speaks not of a particular, but the universal 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 us 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 have been so of necessity, and could not have been otherwise, in vain had he put them in sear of that which follows, 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 Error. 91. Answer; Even now it hath been said, that Potter, and other Protestants commonly teach, that the universal Church, cannot err in Fundamantall Articles, as a particular Church may; and yet every particular Church, by duty, is a teacher of all Necessary Points; Therefore the universal Church must be more; a teacher by duty, and performance. Your Proof, that to be the salt of the earth, (which was spoken to the Apostles) signify only, that it was infallibly certain, they should be so, tends plainly to Atheism, if the denial of Scripture, and all Christianity, must bring to Atheism, as certainly it must. For take away infallibility from the Apostles, what certainty can you have, that in fact they have not neglected and violated their duty, as you say the Church may. You still fall into the same mistake, that God cannot effectually move us, to the performance of a thing, without necessitating our will. Neither doth it follow, that in vain our Saviour put them in fear of that which follows, if the salt hath lost his savour &c: For when God doth promise a thing, he doth not exclude means, or our endeavour, to the application of which he can also move us effectually, without prejudice to the freedom of our will. The Apostles in the Council which they held at Jerusalem, were certain not to determine any Error; and yet they used great diligence, examination, and dispute; (Act: 15.7.) I suppose you will not deny that S. John was infallibly assisted in writing his Gospel, and yet S. Hierom (in praef: in Evangel. Matth:) sayeth, that he could not be entreated to set on that holy Work, but upon condition, that, indicto jejunio, in common omnes Deum deprecarentur, the Christians should have a fett fast, and all should join in prayer to God. Do you not believe, that God did so assist the Writers of Canonical 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 clear, 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 lose 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 have said enough of this matter. 92. Fourthly; (N. 78.) you answer; that, we must prove, that by Truth in the said Text, is meant all Truth, both Fundamental, and profitable; and that you grant it to be the Essence of the Church, to be a maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth. But this evasion, hath been confuted already, out of your own assertion, that we cannot believe the Church in Fundamental Articles, unless she be infallible in all; and this urges most clearly in your opinion, who profess it impossible, to know, what Points in particular be Fundamental. And I beseech you consider, that S. Paul speaks of the primitive Church of those times, which you will not deny to have been infallible; and therefore if he speak of the universal Church (as in this Fourth Answer you suppose he doth) you must grant, that Church to be infallible in all Fundamental, and unfundamentall Points: And so this Text cannot be restrained to Fundamental Truths. 93. Your (N. 79.80.) Pretends to answer the Argument, taken out of S. Paul (Ephes: 4.) He gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the Ministry, unto the edifying of the Body of Christ: Until we meet all into the unity of Faith, and knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man, into the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ: That now we be not children wavering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness, to the circumvention of Error. Out of which words it appears, that God hath left to his Church, Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of Saints, which comprises the whole space of this world, until all be brought to the unity of Faith, (which is necessary not only for the times of the Apostles, but also afterward) and in such manner, as that we be not wavering, but have some firm infallible Ground, on which to rely, in matters of Faith. 94. To this place you answer; that (He gave) is not to be understood (He promised that he would give unto the world's end) but that, not the infallibility, of any Church, but Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists &c: which Christ gave upon his Ascension, 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 say, against all Christians, of whom not any deny, that our Saviour promised to give Pastors, Doctors, Preachers, Ministers &c: to the world's end; if not for contributing infallibility to the Church, at least for other good, and necessary purposes, and effects, as teaching, preaching, governing, enacting Laws, inflicting Censures, punishing, administering 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.) citys even this place, and sayeth: Remansit Doctorum, Pastorumue officium, nec non alia quaedam. The same is the doctrine of other learned Protestants, as I have set down heretofore in particular, out of Brereley (Tract: 2. Cap: 2. Sect: 1.) In so much as Doctor Saravia (in defence: 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 gave) tooth time 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 essential to the true Church? 96. You object, that by, (he gave) to understand, he promised that he would give to the world's end is an interpretation, of which you say to Charity Maintained, What reason have you for this conceit? Can you show that the word, edoke hath this signification in other places, and that it must have it in this place? Or will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity, that God hath not performed his promise? Unless you will say, which for shame I think you will not, that you have now, and in all ages since Christ have had Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists: For as for Pastors and Doctors alone, they will not serve the turn. For if God promised to give all these, than you must say he hath given all, or else 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 have all. For it is apparent, that by these names, are denoted several Orders of men, clearly distinguished and diversified by the Original Text; but much more plainly by your own 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 parallel 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 style a conceit, is the conceit of all Protestants, as I have showed. That the word dedit hath the signification of a Promise, in other places will appear, 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, sayeth, Cornelius à Lapide upon this place, significat firmitatem & certtudinem Promissionis divinae: Quod scilicet ita certi simus de vita aeterna, si in Fide & obedientia Christi perseveremus, perinde ac si actu ea nobis data esset, eamque reipsa possideremus: And S. Austin in (Psalmo. 60. N. 6.) upon these words; Dedisti haereditatem timentibus nomen tuum; sayeth: Perseveremus in timore nominis Dei; aeternus Pater non nos fallit; where it is clear the word, dedisti signify a Promise of things; as Bellarmine also explicates the same dedisti, by, firmiter promisisti. S. John (C. 10. V 28.) sayeth, Ego vitam aeternam do eyes, where Cornelius a Lapide sayeth: Do ijs, quia nimirum promitto eis vitam aeternam. And so we see that (Dedit Apostolos &c:) expresses the certainty of God's Promise, more than if he had expressly said, I will give. But to what purpose, should I say more? seeing there can be no more plain signification, of dedit, than appointed, or constituted for his Church, Apostles &c: as appears by the scope of the Apostle in this Chapter from the beginning, which was to exhort Christians to Charity, and keeping the unity of Spirit in the bond of peace, as one body and one Spirit; which exhortation as it is was directed to the Church of all ages, so the means to perform it, must extend to the world's end; and this means S. Paul declares to be the Authority and offices of Apostles, Pastors &c: to the consummation of Saints, and meeting in unity of Faith. And the same intention of the Apostle appears, in that which you call the parallel place (1. Cor: 12.) where that (as he said V. 24.) there might be no Schism in the Body, he shows that every one ought to be content, with his own degree, seeing God will have 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 world's end, as Unity is ever necessary, against Division, and Schism. 98. And now, who is found guilty of blasphemous absurdity? We have 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 thereof; 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? whereas Catholics are certain the Church shall never be destitute of such degrees; and therefore Protestants alone must be driven to that blasphemous absurdity, that God hath not performed his promise. And I may turn against yourself your own argument, thus: 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:) Therefore he promised Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists for ever. And then further: seeing our Saviour promised infallibility, to those of whom S. Paul speaks, as you suppose, we must firmly believe, that they who shall remain to the world's end, are endued with infallibility. 99 But here it is to be considered, that some things are essential to the Being of Apostolate, or Office of an Apostle; other are accidental, without which it may consist. Of the essence of Apostolate, is, power of Order and Jurisdiction, in utroque foro, as Divines speak; and infallibility for matters belonging to Faith, without which, men could not be obliged, to believe them, with an Act of divine Faith, which requires absolute certainty. Of the other kind I have spoken, and given examples, above; and I hope you will not deny power of excommunicating because it is not, as I may say, seconded, with a visible delivering to Satan the person so censured; nor that Christians receive not the holy Ghost, because they see no fiery tongues, nor speak all languages. If then, power of Jurisdiction, and Governing, be essentially required to the office of an Apostle (which power I hope you will not deny to remain 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 denied, but that, Apostolate, or Apostolical office, for the substance, is, and shall remain in the Church, to the world's end. And therefore you spoke unadvisedly (to say no more) in saying to Charity Maintained; For shame you will not say, that you have now, and in all Ages since Christ have had Apostles &c: and yet, as a Divine aught to have done, you go not about to inform us, in what the Essence of Apostleship consists. For if you will have it consist in this, That they were chosen by our Saviour immediately, you must exclude S. Mathias from the Apostolical College; and if you respect only the name of Apostle, you must increase the number of twelve, by adding Epaphroditus (Philip: 2.25.) and Andronicus, and Junia (Rom: 16.7.) who are said to be noble among the Apostles. 100 But doubtless we cannot pretend to have Prophets. Yes, we can; and with good reason. Your Uolkelius (Lib: 6. Cap: 5.) sayeth: 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 he: though it be strange, that he should say immediately after, that this office hath ceased; seeing none pretend more, than our new Reformers to declare so deep and hidden mysteries of Religion, that they were unknown to the whole Church before Luther. And that by Prophets in this place, are understood interpreters of Scripture is the Judgement 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 affirms, 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 have 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 said, that there are never wanting in God's Church holy men, endued with the Gift of Prophecy. Neither are they only Evangelists, who wrote the Gospels, but as Uolkelius sayeth loco citato; Evangelistae illi fuisse videntur, qui Apostolis salutiferum sempiternae faelicitatis nuntium terrarum Orbi afferentibus adhaerebant, eosque ea in rejuvabant. Seeing then we have proved, that we have 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.) sayeth to Timothy, Opus fac Evangelistae; so that not only they were Evangelists, who wrote, but those also who declared, and published the Gospel, to others: And Cornelius à Lapide citys the judgement 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 times Deacons sing the Gospel; and in their Ordination, they receive power to preach the Gospel. But besides all this, I desire to know (when for explication of dedit, he gave, you say it signify, that Christ gave at his Ascension, Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists) what you mean by at his Ascension? Seeing at our Saviour's Ascension, there were no Evangelists, who wrote any Gospel of S. Matthew, that was the first, being written about eight years after our Saviour Ascension, and the Gospel of S. John was written about the year our Lord ninetynine of; how then can you explicate (He gave) to signify only what he actually left to his Church, and not with a reference to the future, what he was to leave? The like Demand may be made, concerning the Apostles; considering, that S. Mathias was presently chosen, and S. Paul some two years after our Saviour's Ascension, was extraordinarily called, to be an Apostle? last; the same Promise, may respect different objects, according to their diversity of nature; and may be understood, perpetual in respect of those, which are always necessary to the Church, and in order to others, limited to a time, according to their exigence; and so God should not fail of his promise, but perform it, according to the first intention thereof; as Protestants are wont to say, that God promised the Gift of miracles for a time only, and yet it cannot be denied, but that at the same time he gave a command to preach, and baptise, and a promise, that he who believeth, and is baptised shall be saved; (Mark 16.) both which, were to last till the world's end. You say; can you show that the word edoke, hath this signification in other places, and that it must have it in this place? Whereby you signify, that though it had this signification, in an hundred other places, yet that were not enough, to show that it must have it in this; which is very true. For, to be affirmed in Scripture but once, is as much as to be affirmed, a mill yond of times; and seeing you can give no certain Rule, whether I must understand, that one place by those many, or contrarily the greater number, by that one, it appears, 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 Maintained alleged that Text (Ephes. 4.) and the other places of which we have spoken; all which, though indeed they be clear 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 Catholics manifestly false. 101. The rest of (N. 80.) about the sufficiency of Scripture alone, hath been confuted in divers occasions. Your instance, (that if Galen, Euclid. etc. had writ complete bodies of the sciences they professed, perspicuously, and by Divine inspiration, we would then hau: granted, that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error, and from dissension in these matters) is but a begging of the Question, that Scripture is the only Rule of Faith; and because, exceptio firmat contrariam regulam, and that Scripture is not the total Rule of Faith, we must retort your argument against yourself, and say, that by Scripture, which alone is not a complete comprehension of all necessary points, we cannot be kept from error and dissension in matters of Faith. Besides those Authors might preserve us from error and dissension, in virtue of Demonstrations, evident to natural Reason, wherein all men agree. But the Objects of Faith are obscure, and Scripture not able to interpret itself, though it were supposed to contain all matters of Faith (as it doth not) and therefore a Living interpreter, is necessary, besides the written word. 102 Your (N. 81.) contains nothing but Passion, with the quintessence of Socinianism, seeing you expressly profess, that you are willing to leave all men to their liberty; and therefore needs no answer, except what hath been given heretofore. You do but cavil, at this saying of Charity Maintained (all which words, or Texts, wont to be alleged for the infallibility of the Church, seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is universally infallible,) as if it had indeed seemed to him, that those Texts did only seem to prove; whereas it is evident, and so He expressly declared himself, he said so, because he did not bring them for proofs, but only to show, how hard, and impossible, it is to determine matters by Scripture alone, seeing that which seems to one, to be the plain meaning of God's Word, seems not so to an other: though indeed the said Texts do effectually prove the necessity of an infallible living Guide. But as you began, upon a direct mistake, to examine the Texts which Charity Maintained alleged, so it was very congruous, you should conclude with the like error. 103. I might omit the following Numbers, as containing no real difficulty, which hath not been cleared heretofore. Yet I will note some passages, to prevent all suspicion of guiltiness, tergiversation, or artificial dissimulation of what I could not answer. Only I entreat the Reader to read the words of Charity Maintained in himself, if he chance to find any difficulty. In your (N. 84.) you falsify the words of Charity Maintained which are (N. 23.) Scripture is to be understood literally (where you leave of, but Charity Maintained adds.) as it sounds; and you cannot deny, but according to the sound of the letter, or words, our interpretation of our Saviour's Promises without any limitation, is more agreeable to the sound of the words, which express or sound no restraint, than that of Potter, which restrains them to fundamental points. And therefore your telling us, that to literal is not opposed Restrained, bu● Figurative, is impertinent; seeing Charity Maintained expressly spoke only of what did most suit with the sound of the letter; which whosoever restrains without evident necessity, doth as ill, or worse, than if he reduced it to a figurative sense: yea a reality and a Figure may stand together, as limited, and unlimited 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 have showed) and in divers other matters; which is a sign, you have no certain, clear Rule, or means, for interpreting Scripture; as also appears by the innumerable other disagreements of Protestants, which experience no man will deny to be a good proof. But, say you, If there be no possible means to agree about the sense of these Texts, whilst we are left to ourselves, than it is impossible, that Protestants should agree in your fence of them, that the Chureh is universally 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 Means, which Protestants prescribe, for that purpose; seeing they cannot exceed probability, as Protestants confess: whereas we rely upon other infallible means, as Tradition, and Authority of the Church, which we prove to be infallible, independently of Scripture (which you also profess to receive from the Church) and then we may find in Scripture, Texts, which being interpreted by the true Church, may bear witness to particulars concerning her; (for there can be no better reason to believe one, than a belief that he is infallible) as you will not deny, but that if once we believe Scripture to be the word of God, we may prove by it , truths concerning itself, as that it is divinely inspired, that it is profitable to teach, to correct etc. as also you must grant, that the Apostolical primitive Church, which you hold to be infallible, could bear witness to itself, 105. You urge Charity Maintained with this Demand: Why then said you of the self same Texts, but in the Pags next before, these words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is universally infallible. A sirange forgetfulness, that the same man, almost in the same breath should say of the same words. They seem clearly enough to prove such a conclusion true, and yet that three indifferent men, should have no possible means, while they follow their own reason to agree inch truth of this conclusion. 106. Answer; is it not a strange thing, that you should not distinguish betwixt videri, and videre: seeming, and seeing? seeming, doth not signify certainty or evidence, as seeing, doth; and he who sees the sun shine at midday, will not say, that it seems clear enough, that the Sun shines, but his very Act of seeing, makes it certain and evident to him, that he sees. And if this be not true, that Charity Maintained did not absolutely affirm, but only said, it seems clear enough etc. 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 seems to be universally infallible, meaning to yourself; Therefore I willingly grant your Conclusion. But of the intention and meaning of Charity Maintained in alleging the said Texts of Scripture, for the infallibility of the Church, we have said enough already. 107. I wonder, you are so , as to say, we prove the Church to be infallible, because she is infallible, seeing our Doctrine is this; That we first prove the Church to be infallible, and then infer, that whatsoever she teaches being true, and that among other points she teaches, one is her own infallibility, we may believe it even for her Authority, as I shown you must say the same of Scripture, if once you believe it to be the word of God. CHAP: XIII. THAT THE CREED CONTAINS NOT ALL POINTS NECESSARILY TO BE BELIEVED: IN ANSWER TO HIS FOURTH CHAPTER. 1. REpetition of the same thing, will not I hope, seem either needless, or fruiteless when it is necessary for some good purpose, and effect. I do therefore entreat the Reader now, as I have done heretofore, not to look 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 omit, as containing nothing, which hath not been answered already. Only I wish, you had declared, what your understand in your (N. 2.) by these words: Every one of the fundamental Rules of good life and action is to be believed to come from God, and therefore 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 ears, etc. You say, they come from God, and therefore include virtually an Article of Faith. If you mean, 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 formal Objects of Faith, as I said, and do not only virtually include an Article of Faith. But it may be feared, that in these words there lurks some hidden poison; as if the rules of good life and action, as they are known, by the light of natural Reason (and not as they are revealed, and so become formal Objects of Faith) were sufficient, to direct our life, for bringing us to salvation, and that no supernatural knowledge were necessary. No less obscure are your other words, that, Fundamental Doctrines of Faith, are such, as though they have influence upon our lives, as every essential Doctrine of Christianity hath, yet we are commanded to believe them, and not to do them. For by these words, how do you distinguish Credenda, from agenda, if both have influence upon our lives, and in neither of them, the act of our understanding or assent, is that which we do, but only it is the act which directs us to do other things, and so hath influence upon our lives? But these things I omit, and come to 3. Your (N. 11.) wherein you say to C: Ma: Your distinction between points necessary to be believed, and necessary not to be disbelieved, is more subtle 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 concurs both the Affirmative precept, of exercicing an explicit act of Faith, and the Negative, of not disbelieving any truth revealed by God. But that which you add, nor no point to any man, at any time, in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the same man, at the same time in the same circumstances necessary to be believed is manifestly untrue. For, when it is proposed to one's understanding, that God hath revealed some Truth, he may truly judge, that there is no affirmative Precept, which obliges him, at that time to exercise any act of Faith, about that partioular object; and therefore may resolve to abstain or forbear, to produce any such assent of Faith, but think of something else (and may have reason to do so, u.g. if some act of an other virtue be more pressing at that time) and yet he should sinne damnably, if he did positively descent: And so, at the same time it may be necessary not to disbelieve some Truth, and yet not be necessary, actually to believe it. It is disputed in the schools, whether the will can stay the understanding, from yielding assent, to a conclusion deduced evidently, from evident Premises. But no man can doubt, whether the will may draw our understanding, from a positive actual assent, to the Objects of Faith, which are so obscure, that they require a pious affection in the will, which therefore may descent, and are so difficult, that for every act of faith, we need the particular supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost: and than what wonder is it, that we may abstain from doing that, which is not in our sole power to perform? and to which we are forced, neither metaphysically, as I have showed, nor morally, because we suppose, there is no affirmative precept, to exercise such an act of Faith, in those circumstances. It seems you have a mind against all Divines to make no difference between the affirmative, and Negative Precept of Faith, whereof Cha. Ma. speaks (Part 1. Chap: 3. N. 2.) and what he sayeth, may be applied to our present purpose, and who will say, That every one, is always obliged to be exercising a positive act of Faith, upon all those objects, which he can never disbelieve? May not a man, reading or hearing some part of Scripture, only conceive it per primam apprehensionem, without affirming or denying, as when one learns without Book, or only considers the phrase, or writes as at a copy, and the like. 4. You continue your discourse, and say to Charity Maintained, Yet that which (I believe) you would have said, I acknowledge true, that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely, are yet necessary to be believed upon a supposition, that they are known to be revealed by God: that is, become then necessary to be believed, when they are known to be Divine Revelations. But Ch. Ma: hath no reason to accept as a favour this explication of yours, which contains false doctrine, as if all truths became necessary to be believed, by an explicit, actual belief, when they are known to be divine Revelations; which is not universally, or necessarily true, it being in rigour sufficient, that they be not disbelieved. This was the scope of Charity Maintained; to show, that to allege the Creed, as containing all Fundamental 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 therefore though it were granted that Protestants did agree in all the articles of the Creed, (which thing I have demonstrated not to be true) nevertheless, they could not all pretend 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 believe, Every Text of Scripture to be revealed by God; are they therefore obliged, to be still exercising an explicit act of Faith, concerning them? Rather of the two, and speaking in general, and pierce loquendo, or ex natura rei, if they be not Fundamental articles, it may so fall out, that you are never obliged to afford them any such positive Assent; and so you remain obliged never to dis believe them, and yet never obliged, explicitly to believe them; which is a true proposition, against your universal 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 time, 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.) have been answered already. C. Mist. with all Divines, supposes, that no man can be obliged to believe any point not sufficiently propounded, as Dr. Potter also teaches, and is evident to the very light of natural Reason. I beseech the Reader, for confuting your (N. 15.) to peruse Ch. Ma. (N. 3.) And how do you tell us in this (N. 15.) that the certainty you have of the Cteed is from constant Tradition; seeing you profess, that we have no universal Tradition, except that which delivers to us the Scripture? If you belief the Creed, that it was from the Apostles, and contains the principles of Faith (as you say) for universal Tradition, and not for Scripture, (as you expressly confess) you free men from obligation, of reading, or knowing the Scripture, for all necessary points of belief, which by this means, they may find independently of Scripture, and with as much certainty, as you believe Scripture, which you profess to receive from universal Tradition, for which you also believe the Creed. And so you overthrew the most universal Doctrine of Protestants, that Scripture is necessary, and that (not from Tradition) but from it alone, we must learn all things belonging to salvation. And how did we hear 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, do keep men in unity, seeing now you acknowledge, a Tradition distinct from, and independent of Scripture, whereby we may be kept in unity? Now, if we receive the Creed from the Church, we must believe her to be infallible, and that to oppose any proposal of hers, is damnable, though one believe the whole Creed; and therefore it is impertinent to allege the Creed, to assert unity of Faith among Protestants, while they differ in other points of Faith, not contained in the Creed; and so Ch. Ma. said truly, that it was both falls, and impertinent, to say, The Creed contains all necessary points of Faith. But here I must entreat you to consider, how you can say (as you do in this place) The certainty I have of the Creed, That it was from the Apostles, and contains the principles of Faith, I ground it not upon Scripture? (Pag. 149. N. 37.) you say expressly: Protestant's ground their belief, that such and such things only are fundamentals, only upon Scripture, and go about to prove their assertion true, only by Scripture. Can Protestants ground their belief, that such and such things only are fundamentals, only upon Scripture, and yet not ground upon Scripture the certainty, which they have that the Creed contains all fundamentals, and so know all fundamentals independently of Scripture? 6. You say (N. 18.) That the last objection of Ch. Ma. stands upon 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 expressly 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 seeing the Doctor confesses, that new Heresies may arise, and that therefore the Creed was necessarily explained by other Creeds of Nyce etc. 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 clear, that you give only this answer: This explication of (Dr. Potter) and restriction of this doctrine (that the Creed contains a Catalogue of all necessary Points of Faith) whereof you make your advantage was to my understanding unnecessary. And so you leave your client, and acknowledge 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 receive strength only from equivocation, the thing itself being clear; 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 believe, unless you will have men believe they know not what. Now whether you will call this application, or declaration, only a necessary condition sine qua not, or part of the formal object of Faith, makes nothing to our present purpose, but is learnedly handled by Catholic Divines. Certain we are, that it is not the total, or principal, but only a partial, and secondary object, if it belong at all to the formal object of our Belief: neither can any man imagine, that the application to us, of Divine Revelations, is the essential form, and last compliment of an Article of Faith, if by last compliment and essential form, you mean that which is the chiefest, and most principal, which is only the Divine Testimony or Revelation, and therefore you show, either ignorance, or some worse thing, in supposing, that we make Divine Revelation, to be the matter, and sufficient declaration to be the form 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 errors against those revealed Truths, a declaration was necessary, to be made, by that Means, which God hath left to decide Controversyes in Religion, as we said heretofore, about Canonical Books of Holy Scripture. 7. I need say no more to your (N. 19) than only, that seeing you and Dr. Potter pretend, that the Creed contains only Credenda, and not Agenda, you further men no more towards salvation, than one who would bring you half way to your journeys end, and then for your greater comfort tell you, that neither he, or any other could conduct you, further; as in this place you do; first, referring him to Scripture for full satisfaction; and then telling him, that to give a particular Catalogue of Fundamental, is impossible. Of the difference between the Catalogue, which Ch. Ma. gives, and that which you assign, I have spoken heretofore. 8. Your (N. 20.) is but a passage to your following (N. 21.22.23.24.) Wherein you heap words upon words, and Syllogism upon Syllogism, 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 contain, it cannot be said to comprehend all necessary points. 2. When question is, whether the Creed contain all Fundamental Articles, it must be understood in such manner as by it alone, we may be sure to know all Fundamental points, and consequently, 3. that by it alone we may know the true sense of all such points. 4. That yet (as Ch. Ma shows 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 Catholics, and amongst themselves. 5. That therefore the Creed, without Tradition, and interpretation of the Church, is so fare from enabling us, to believe all Fundamental points, that men left to themselves, would be sure to take occasion thereby, of many Errors, and Heresies, as experience hath taught the world. But if you take the Creed, with the Living voice, Tradition, and declaration of the Church, it cannot avail you who reject the Authority of the Church. 6. Whatsoever the ancient Fathers, or modern Writers, deliver concerning the sufficiency of the Creed, for matters of Faith, they always take it, with the Tradition of the Church; and so not the Creed alone, but the Creed with Tradition, is that of which they speak, and therefore are so fare from speaking home to your purpose, that in every one of their sentences, they oppose your Assertion, concerning the Creed; which is so clearly true, that you proceed to the abandoning, and even opposing Dr. Potter, for mentioning the explanation of the Creed, by Counsels, or the Church. Neither can you with any shadow of reason, prove, that it was, necessary, the Creed should contain all necessary points of Faith, unless first you beg 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 said of Scripture: neither is it our part to examine, why the Apostles set not down all particulars, as it is clear, they have delivered some points of less moment, than are divers mysteries of our Saviour's life, omitted by them; and will you ask them, why did you so? 7. We may infer out of what hath been said; That although the Articles contained in the Creed, may seem to be comprised in a small compass, if we respect the words; yet if we consider the sense, and such main Articles as have 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 proof whereof I refer the Reader to Ch●ma. (N. 4.5.6.) where he shall see how many necessary points are employed in one of the Articles of the Creed. 9 These Observations being premised; together with what Charity Maintained, notes N. 9 (That all points of Faith may be said to be contained in the Creed in some sense; as, for example implicitly, generally, or in some such involved manner. For when we believe the Catholic Church, we do implicitly believe whatsoever she proposeth as belonging to Faith. Or else by way of reduction etc.) All your objections are answered. For when Charity Maintoyned (N. 8.) affirms; That the Creed contains such general heads as were most fitting and requisite for preaching the Faith of Christ to jews, and Gentiles etc.; He means not of the bare words, but of the sense, as he expressly declares (N. 4. and 5.) which meaning we are to receive from the Church, declaring in all occasions, what occurs necessary to salvation: and so, as I said, there was no necessity, that all necessary points should be contained in the Creed, otherwise than in some general manner, u.g. in the Article of the Church, as herefore we said out of S. Austin, concerning Scripture; and as Repentance, the Sacrament of Baptism, and Penance (which are to be reckoned inter Agenda) are implied in the Article of Remission of sins; as Potter (Pag. 237.) sayeth, that the Eucharist is evidently included in the Communion of Saints, 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 believe, but also that we Hope for that Life: yea Ch. ma. (N. 5.) shows, that in the Article of our Saviour's being Redeemer, are contained many other chief points belonging to practise; or Agenda: As likewise the Article of the Church contains, Government, Discipline, Power to excommunicate, etc. so that there is no necessity to understand the Creed only of speculative Objects: and than what reason can you give, why some Agenda are implied, and not other? And so your discourse (N. 22.) which goes upon this ground, that the Creed contains merely 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 general heads of Faith, which being points of simple belief were most fit and requisite etc.) whereas He (N. 8.) which here you cite, hath no such limitation to points of simple belief, as may be seen 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 said (N. 8.) he citys the Dostrine of Potter, that the Creed contains only credenda. Neither will you be able to find, in all Ch. ma. that he ever reaches, that the Creed contains only such Articles, as are merely speculative, but only mentions it as taught by Potter: nor have you any reason to exact of him (Ch. Ma.) that he should have added the particles, all, or some, seeing his Propositions, though seeming indefinite, yet were sufficiently declared by the matter and circumstances. And therefore I must put you in mind, that you take too much upon you, when you give this Title to this Chapter. That the Creed contains a● necessary Points of mere belief. Now whosoever ponders those Premises with attention, will see that your multitude and Aggregation of Syllogisms, have only this, that they are more difficult to be understood, than answered. 10. Your (N. 24.) is answered by only reading the whole (N. 9) of Changed Ma: you cite it (N. 10.) For it will be found, that you are grounded only upon 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 urge: The Article of the Catholic Church, wherein you will have all implied, implies nothing to any purpose of yours, unless out of mere 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 prove the infallibility of the Church; and we must not gather it at the first from the meaning of this Article, but we learn the sense of this Article from the Church pre-believed to be infallible. And seeing you profess to receive the Creed (and even Scripture) from the Tradition of the Church, you cannot be certain, that the contents thereof are true, unless first you believe the Church to be infallible. Besides, by the Church, all Christians vnderstand a Congregation of Faithful people, capable of salvation; and yourself teach, that every error in Faith, unrepented, brings damnation. How then can it be said, that the whole universal Church can err in Faith? But you do very inopportunely talk, whether Ours be the Church: seeing we speak only of the Church in general, abstracting, for the present, from that other Question; though it be evident, 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 go forward and say to Charity Maintained. The Apostles intention was by your own confession particularly to deliver in the Creed such Articles of belief as were fittest for those times. Now to deliver particularly, and to deliver only implicitly, 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 impugn. For, Changed Ma: never said 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 implicitly, others reductiuè, as he declares in those two Numbers. Now, that some things should be delivered particularly, and other some only implicitly, and other only reductively, can be no irreconciliable repugnance, seeing in all good Logic repugnance must be in order to the same thing; as it is no repugnance, that one writer, should proceed honestly, and speak to the purpose, and an other do quite the contrary. 13. For answer to your (N. 25.26.27.28.29.) I have attentively considered, and compared with my observations, all the Authorityes, or sentences, which you allege out of Catholic Writers, and find them to contain no difficulty, not precluded and answered, by those observations. And who knows not, that all Catholics believe, that all declarations of General Counsels, concerning the Creed (and all other points of Faith) are necessarily to be believed? to say nothing of the other observations. But I must be still entreating the Reader to read in Charity Maintained his (N. 10.11.12.13.14.15.) which you confusedly huddle up together. 14. In your (N. 30.) you grant as much, as can be desired by us, to prove, that to allege the Creeds containing all necessary, and Fundamental points, is impertinent, to make either both Catholics, and Protestants, or all Protestants, capable of salvation, though they believe the Creed, yet differ in other revealed Truths. Thus you writ in order to the (N. 10.) of Char: Ma: Neither is there any discord between this Assertion of your doctors, and their holding themselves obliged to believe all the Points which the Council of Trent defines. For Protestants and Papists may both hold, that all points of belief necessary to be known, and believed are summed up in the Creed: And yet both the one and the other think themselves bound to believe whatsoever other points they either know or believe to be revealed by God. For the Articles which are necessary to be known, that they are revealed by God, may be very few; and yet those which are necessary to be believed, when they are revealed and known to be so, may be very many. These words show, that Prorestants do but delude poor souls, when they tell them, that all Protestants have the substance of Faith, because they believe the Creed; when in the mean time, they disagree in other points revealed by God; and yourself say else where, that, as things now stand, there is the like necessity, to believe all points contained in Scripture, as well not Fundamental, as Fundamental. And therefore it can little avail Protestants, to agree in the Creed, which yet they do not, if we regard the sense, and not the mere sound of the words while, they disagree, in so many other points belonging to Faith. The Truth is; This grant, and declaration of yours, might well have freed me, from answering all the rest which you have in this Chapter; and whatsoever else you prove, or disprove, cannot be against the substance, of that, which Charity Maintained affirmed in his fourth Chapter, which treats this Question about the Creed. 15. You pretend in your (N. 31.) to answer the (N. 11.) of Charity Maintained, but you omit his discourse about the Decalogue of the commandments, to show a simili, or paritate, that it is not necessary, that the Creed contain all necessary points, seeing what is not expressed in it, may be known by other means. It will not be amiss, to set down the words of Ch: Ma: which are: Who is ignorant that Summaries, Epitomees, and the like brief Abstracts, are not intended to specify all particulars of that science, or subject to which they belong? For as the Creed is said to contain all points of Faith, so the decalogue comprehends all Articles, as I may term them, which concern Charity, and good life: and yet this cannot be so understood, as if we were disobliged from performance of any duty, or the eschewing of any vice, unless it be expressed in the ten Commandments. For (to omit the precepts of receiving Sacraments, which belong to practise, or manners, and yet are not contained in the Decalogue) there are many sins, even against the Law of nature, and light of reason, which are not contained in the ten Commandments, except only by similitude, analogy, reduction, or some such way. For example; we find not expressed in the Decalogue, either divers sins, as Gluttony, Drunkenness, Pride, Sloth, Covetousness in desiring either things superfluous, or with too much greediness; or divers of our chief obligations, as obedience to princes, and all superiors, not only Ecclesiastical, but also Civil. And the many Treatises of Civilians, Canonists, and Casuists are witnesses, that divers sins against the light of Reason, and Law of nature, are not distinctly expressed in the ten commandments; although, when by other diligences they are found to be unlawful, they may be reduced to some of the commandments, and yet not so evidently, and particularly, but that divers do it in divers manners. Thus far Charity Maintained. Of all this you thought sit to take no notice, but only cavil at his words: (That Summaries, Epitomees, and the like brief Abstractes, are not intended to specify all particulars of that Science, or subject, to which they belong) against which you reply: Yes, if they be intended for perfect Summaries, they must not omit any necessary Doctrine of that Science whereof they are Summaries. Answer; the Creed is a perfect summary, of those Truths, which the Apostles intended to deliver therein. Now for you to suppose, that their purpose, was to express all necessary points of Faith, is to beg the Question, in stead of answering the Argument of Charity Maintained, about the Decalogue of commandments; though still I grant, that the Creed contains all necessary points of Faith, in that sense, which I explicated in my Observations. 16. All that you have (N. 32.33.34.35.36.37.38.) makes nothing against the Doctrine of Charity Maintained, but confirms it, because you confess, that defacto, there are many points necessary to be believed, which belong not immediately to practice: from whence it follows evidently, that Protestants do but cozen poor people, in alleging the Creed to that purpose, for which they make use or it, as I said. 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 err in such points, we must say, the Creed doth not contain all necessary Articles of belief. Morover you cannot be sure, but that of those many important points, which Charity Maintained shows not to be contained in the Creed, some are fundamental; seeing you confess, that you cannot tell, which points in particular be fundamental; and so, for ought you know, they are fundamental. I observe, that you make mention of other particular points, touched by Charity Mairtayned, but omit that of Original sin, because you do not believe it; and yet Charity Maintained (N. 9) told you, that S. Austin (de Pec. Orig. Cont. Pelag. L. 2 Chap. 22.) teacheth, that it belongs to the foundation of Faith. Lastly and Chief; since the Creed alone without the Tradition and declaration of the Church, cannot give us the true sense of itself, and that in every one of its Articles, are implied divers points not expressed, which were afterwards declared by General Counsels, and which all are obliged to believe; it follows, that even for those articles, which you call credenda, the Creed is not sufficient of itself: To say nothing that for the main point Dr. Potter, and you, yield us as much as we desire, to wit, that the Creed contains not all Fundamental points of Faith, as Faith directs our manners, and practice; and so whatsoever you say of points merely speculative, imports little, for the main Substance, of clearing Protestants from falsehood, and impertinency, in alleging the Creed, as they are wont to do; as if all were done, which is required to Christians for matter of their understanding, and belief, if they give 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 flourish about the Doctrine of Merit, which is not a subject to be handled in this place, whereof every one may find excellent Treatises, in many Catholic Writers. Only I say, 1. That it is certain Protestants have always supposed, that they differ from us in this point, and therefore that our disagreement is in that Fundamental point, that God is a Remunerator, as S. Paul saith, and to this end only, Charity Maintained mentioned this point of Merit, not to impugn the doctrine of Protestants, in this place, and therefore your discourse of this matter, is plainly impertinent. 2. That you do not, or at least, will not understand rightly, our Catholic Doctrine about Merit, which requires, both habitual grace, and particular motion of the Holy Ghost, who therefore rewards his own Gifts; and you wrong us in saying, we make God a rewarder only, and not a giver. For this cause we acknowledge our works, of themselves, or of their own nature, to have no proportion, with Grace, and Glory; and that by duty, we are obliged to serve God, as far as he commands us; 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 works, which he is obliged to do; which is much more evident, seeing de facto, God hath not commanded, all that he might have exacted of us in rigour. 3. As else where, so here you take upon 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 speak as you think in behalf of them all, without putting yourself, to maintain contradictions. For, how can they pretend to any Merit, or Obedience, who teach, that it is impossible to keep the Commandments; that all our works are deadly sins; that we have 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.) urges against the Merit of our Blessed Saviour; and therefore English Protestants, who, against you Socinians, believe that Christ merited, and satisfied for mankind, must answer your objections against us. 18. To your (N. 39) I say: whosoever considers the words of Potter, (Pag: 255.) will confess, that he both approves, and applauds, the words of Dr. Usher cited by you: to which words I need 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 belief join holy obedience; seeing it is a deadly sin, and disobedience; and, as you confess, damnable in itself, to hold any error, 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 Fundamental points only, can join men in one communion of Faith, while they so differ in other matters, as one side must be in a damnable error, and the same Heaven cannot contain them both: whereby your Question (why should any error exclude any from the Church's Communion which will not deprive him of eternal salvation?) Is clearly inverted, and retorted, by saying: Why should not any error, exclude any man from the Church's communion, which will deprive him of eternal salvation? The Arguments, which you bring in this Number, and (N. 41.42.43.) to prove, that every one of the four Gospels, contains all points necessary to be believed, have been confuted at large, heretofore. 19 To your (N. 44. and 45.) I answer, that Dr. Ushers words, are as universal as can be. wh he speaks of Propositions, which without all controversy, are universally received in the whole Christian world. And if you will needs have his other words (the seurrall professions of Christianity, that hath any large spread in any part of the world) to be a Limitation of those other which you have now cited, I am content, upon condition, that you confess it to be also a contradiction to those former words of his. As for the thing itself, Cham Ma: names places of large extent, in which the Antitrinitarians are rife; and I fear, he might have added too many in England, Holland, and other places, where Heresy reigns; and even Dr. Porter citys Hooker, and Morton, teaching, that the denial of our Saviour's Divinity, is not a Fundamental heresy, destructive of a true Church; neither doth the Doctor disprove them. Paulus Ueridicus, I grant, names the B. Trinity, among coinopista, not as if Dr. Usher had affirmed it to be such, but as in Truth it is, necessary for all; or rather indeed he affirms nothing, but only, as they say, exempligratia, by way of supposition, which abstracts from the Truth of the thing itself. For thus you cite his words: To consider your coinopista or communiter credenda, Articles, as you call them, universally believed by these several professions of Christianity, which have any large spread in the world: These Articles, for example, may be the unity of the Godhead, the Trinity of Persons, the Immortality of the soul &c: Where you see, he speaks only exempli gratia, or by a may be, according to the Doctrine of Catholics, without regarding, whether, or no, in the opinion of Dr. Usher, the denial of the Trinity, exclude salvation. But it is both ridiculous, and in you, to call this the greatest objection of Charity Maintained, which he touched only by the way, and in order to Dr. V●shers words. For concerning the thing itself, Protestants, who deny the infallibility of God's Church will not, I fear, hold the denial of the Trinity to be a fundamental error; seeing so many old heretics, have denied the Truth of that Article, and you, with your Socinian brethren, do 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 somewhat more against you. For I remember, he shows, how according to Dr. Ushers 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, took no notice, of the contradiction, which Charity Maintained, touches, as he (Charity Maintained) takes not notice, of all the advantages, or other contradictions, which perhaps he might have found, and which Paulus Ueridicus observes; but that was not the aim 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 believe contradictions. Which (N. 47.) you declare, or temper, in this manner: Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions, and that it is unreasonable to do so I willingly grant. But to say it is impossible to be done, is against every man's experience, and almost as unreasonable, as to do the thing, which is said to be impossible. For though perhaps it may be very difficult, for a man in his right wits, to believe a contradiction expressed in terms, especially if he believe it to be a contradiction, yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition, to persuade themselves upon slight and trivial grounds, that these, or these, though they seem contradictions, yet indeed are not so, and so to believe them: or if the plain repugnance of them be veiled and disguised a little, with some empty unintelligible nonsense distinction; or if it be not expressed, but employed, not direct, but by consequence, so that the parties, to whose Faith the propositions are offered, are either innocently, or perhaps affectedly ignorant of the contrariety of them for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions, he that denies it possible, must be a mere 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 have an evasion against whatsoever may be obsected. As for the thing itself; There is no doubt, but that men may believe things, which in themselves are contradictions; whereof we need no other proof, then to show, that it happeneth so to yourself, if you believe what you affirm, even in this matter, wherein I shall demonstrate to be implied plain contradiction. But when men say with one voice, that we cannot assent to contradictions, it is to be understood, if they be apprehended as such; and therefore it might seem needless, to spend many words in confutation of this heresy, as I may call it, against the first principle of Reason. Yet because, your reasons may perhaps seem to some, to prove more; since even in your explication or modification, you say only (perhaps) and (may be) of that which all the world holds for certain, 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 sceptics, who willingly put all things to dispute, whereby, under pretence of freedom in Reason, they take liberty against Religion; as also to show, how little reason you had, to take this vain occasion of a fond flourish, to show a Socinian wit; and lastly, because by this occasion I may examine some other points, I will both confute your reasons, and show that you contradict yourself. 21. Only I cannot for bear to reflect, how he, who resolves Faith into Reason, so much extolled by him, that he relies thereon, as catholics do upon the infallibility of God's Church, or Calvinists upon the private spirit, or on the Grace of God, which both Catholics, and Protestants against Pelagius, believe 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 believe our dreams, than our reason: whereby he destroys all that himself builds upon Reason, and consequently Faith itself, which in his principles, must be resolved into Reason: just as I said heretofore, that although he seem in words, to extol 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 unable, to deliver us any thing, with absolute certainty. A just judgement of God, to bring proud men to confusion, and entrap them in their own snares, and prove their wisdom to be but foolishness, even by crossing, and contradicting themselves, and overthrowing the main foundations of their pretended friends, or clients, as this man destroys the main 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 fear 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 pains taken to confute you, shall only prove, what you grant and seek to prove. And in particular, it will be impossible to confute the Reasons, whereby you endeavour to prove this your assertion; because whatsoever is alleged, can infer 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; seeing the most you can do, will be to drive him unto 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 even this your assertion (contradictions may be true) may be said both to be true, and falls, or not true. And by what Logic 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, seeing the greatest absurdity, that one can be brought to, is that which you grant. And there fore Christianity maintained, (Pag: 62.) said truly, that your Reasons, if you hold them for good, must prove the contrary of that which you intended, that is, your proofs 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 prove any thing, they prove, that one may assent to formal contradictions, which yet you pretend to deny, and therefore even in this respect, you in fact hold contradictions. But let us hear your Reasons. 22. Your first, is this: Whatsoever a man believes true, that he may and must believe; But there have been some who have believen and taught, that contradictions might be true, against whom Aristoile disputes in the third of his Metaphysics; Therefore it is not impossible that a man may believe contradictions. 23. Answer: 1. We have heard you saying (N. 47.) Perhaps it may be very difficult, for a man in his right wits, to believe a contradiction expressed in terms, especially if he believe it to be a contradiction. Now I ask, whether those men whom Aristotle impugns were in their right wits, or no? If they were; Then your Argument, if it prove any thing, proves that it is possible for men in their right wits, to believe contradictions expressed in terms (for Aristotle speaks of such contradictions.) And then how do you say; It is difficult for a man in his right wits to believe a contradiction? Seeing in our case, it is all one to be difficult, and impossible, since that which the light of reason, tells us, is, that it is impossible, and not only difficult, and if you deny it to be impossible you will not be able to prove it difficult; neither did they whom Aristotle impugns, make any distinction, between being difficult, and impossible. So that this part 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 own 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 Masters in Metaphysics; which is no better than to suborn sleeping witnesses, as the Jews did, against our Saviour's resurrection, and as you do, to prove your chimerical Assertion. 2. If you believe, that one may believe contradictions, how will you prove this consequence; some have believed, and taught, that contradictions might be true; Therefore he may and must believe contradictions. If you say; It implies contradictions, that one should believe 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 have it possible that one may assent to contradictions, when you affirm it, and not possible, when an other says the same? 3. If any said, and believed, that contradictions might be true, they erred against the first and most known Principle of nature, and so, as you infer; Contradictoryes were believed to be true, therefore they might be believed to be true; I take the contrary truth; It is known by the light of nature, that contradictories cannot be true, and infer; Therefore it is impossible to believe them, being conceived to be Contradictoryes, if men be in their wits. If you conceive Aristotle, did sufficiently confute those men, why do you allege their confessed falls doctrine, to prove that which you pretend to be true? Certainly this is neither an honest kind of proceeding, nor a good way of proving. If your opinion be, that he did not refel them effectually; without doubt, it had been a Work, beseeming your wit, to have confuted Aristotle, and defended those men, whose doctrine unless you maintaye, your Argument taken from their conceypts, can be of no force at all. Neither had it been needful for you, to have studied, what Title had been fittest for such a Work. For, you might have remembered, that Simon Magus is said to have written Books, which he called Contradictorios. (Uid. Baron. Ann. Christi 35. N. 23.) A Title most agreeable to your genius, both because in this place you expressly defend Contradictions, and in regard, that through your whole Book, you do indeed fall into them, more frequently, than I could have imagined. Yet as for those men whom Aristotle impugns, it is one thing, that they said, they believed Contradictions might be true, and an other that indeed they could believe them, if they were in their right wits, and understood what were true contradictories. In which respect Aristotle Metaphys: (Lib: 4. Cap: 3.) sayeth: Nonenim necesse est, quaecumque quis dicat, ea etiam putare. But this is not the first time, that you confound the first, and second operation of the understanding, or primam apprehensionem, and judicium. Never the less if you be settled in a resolution to defend that men being out of their right wits may believe Contradictories, I say, it imports nothing for our present purpose, seeing I hope you will not say, that the fact of such men can concern Dr. Usher, to whom Cha: Ma: objected, that some words of his did imply a contradiction. Lastly, be pleased to reflect, that Aristotle speaks of express and known Contradictions, and yourself confess, that it is difficult, and men ought not to believe such, and therefore 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 Heresy, unless it contradict some necessary Truth, yet there is no Contradiction but the same man may at once believe this Heresy and this Truth; because there is no Contradiction that the same man at the same time, should believe Contradictions. Let us suppose this to be, as it is, a damnable Heresy; Christ is not the Saviour of the world; the contradictory is: Christ is the Saviour of the world, which is a formal contradiction, and expressed in terms, to which it seems by these words you may assent, and consequently to express contradictions, which yet (N. 47.) you are forced to moderate. But when you say; There is no contradiction but the same man may at once believe this Heresy and this Truth, and add this reason, or proof because there is no contradiction, that the same man at the same time should believe contradictions, you must give me leave to speak and say, that you utter plain nonsense, (yourself talk of some nonsense distinction) in proving that one may believe contradictions, because there is no contradiction, that one believe contradictions, which causal supposes, that we could not believe them, if it were a contradiction to believe them; and consequently, that we cannot believe contradictions; and yet in this very sentence, you say; There is no contradiction but the same man, at the same time should believe contradictions. 24. Your second reason is delivered in these words: They which believe there is no certainty in reason, must believe 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 believe there is no certainty in reason: Therefore there be divers in the world who believe 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 seeing you hold this not only not certainly true, but to be false, it is clear, that you are one of those, who believe there is no certainty in Reason; and consequently, you cannot be certain, even of your own Assertion, that contradictions may be true. And so while you draw an Argument, from those who believe there is no certainty in Reason, you deprive your own Assertion of all certainty. 2. If once you swallow that absurdity, of the truth of contradictoryes, when you say: This Contradicts truth, it is falls, the answer might be; that it might contradict truth, and yet not be falls, but true; because contradictions may be true. And I beseech you tell us; whether you believe, that whatsoever contradicts truth, is falls: If you say it is not falls, you speak absurdly. For what is falsehood but an error against truth? If you say, it must be falls, you overthrew your own Doctrine, that contradictions may be true; because in contradictions one part must be opposite to a truth, and consequently falls. 3. That conceit, that there is no certainty in Reason, being falls and injurious to mankind, you cannot ground on it any truth, except this; that it is a very fit Principle for your absurd Conclusion, that contradictoryes may be true, and that, if you believe it to be true, you are in apernicious error: If you hold it to be falls; why do you urge it against us this Sceptic doctrine? 4. Your Argument proves, that one may assent not only to contradictories, not perceived to be such, but to them expressed in plain terms; because otherwise there would be certainty in this Reason; These be express contradictoryes; Therefore they cannot both be true. Thus still your Reasons, either prove nothing at all, or against yourself. 26. Your third Reason. is: They which do captivate their understandings to the belief of those things which to their understanding seem irreconciliable contradictions, may as well believe real contradictions: (For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant, but for their seeming to be so) But you do captivate your understandings to the belief of those things which seem to your understandings irreconciliable contradictions, Therefore it is as possible and easy for you to believe those that indeed are so. 27. Answer: 1. What is this but to undermine Christian Religion, wherein we submit and captivate our understandings to mysteries, which to humane reason seem impossible, and for that very cause we are taught to captivate our understanding to the obedience of Christ? And now you tell all Christians, that by doing so, they believe Contradictions as well as if they believed real contradictions, which Jew's, Turks, Pagans, and all men in their right wits know to be absurd, and impossible, and you confess to be unreasonable, and very difficult, speaking of express contradictions; as here you speak of such; since you expressly speak of things, which to ones understanding seem irreconciliable contradictions. I desire the Reader to look upon Chr: Ma: (Chap. 9) concerning this matter. 2. , as in other Reasons, so in this, seeing you speak of contradictions expressed in terms, you contradict what yourself afterward (N. 47.) teach. 3. The necessity that all Christians acknowledge of submitting our understanding to Faith, arises from this, that they seem to contain 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 prove, that men may believe contradictions, must suppose, they cannot believe them. For if they could, it would cost them little to believe, that which to them seemed a contradiction. 4. You say, It is as possible and as easy for us to believe those things that indeed are real contradictions, as to believe those things which to our unaerstanding seem contradictions: which words suppose that it is both possible, and easy for us to believe those things which to us seem contradictions; and yet (N. 47.) you say; it is very difficult for a man in his right wits to believe express contradictions. Into how many contradictions, do you fall, while you treat of conradictions? 5. Your Argument scarcely deserves any Answer. For who is ignorant, that contradiction must involve two sides, one affirming, the other denying; and therefore when one, allthings considered, believes one part only, he is so fare from believing things which to his understanding seem contradictions, that he is certain, not to believe contradictions; because he sees, that he believes one part only of the contradiction, and rejects the other, and is also certain, that, as I said, contradiction must involve two parts. And here I would demand, wherher you believe indeed, that contradictions can be true? If you believe they may be true, than Christian Religion may teach; Scripture may contain; God may reveal, and must assent to contradictions, seeing he cannot but assent to all truth. And are not these blasphemies? If you believe, contradictions cannot be true; how will you have it possible for any man to believe that, which he believes not to be true? You said in your first Reason, Whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must believe: And certainly, I may better say: Whatsoever a man believes, nor to be true; that he neither may, nor can believe: and therefore seeing all men in their right wits, believe that contradictoryes cannot be true, it is impossible that they should believe them. But let us proceed to your 28. Fourth Reason. Some men, say you, may be confuted in their errors, and persuaded out of them; but no man's error can be confuted, who together with his error doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his error: For nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing, neither can there be (as all men know) any rational discourse but out of grounds agreed on by both parts. Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certain, that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions. 29. Answer. First: If it were lawful to use such an expression, it might well, be said, that it seems fatal for you, to be at variance with yourself. For, I pray you suppose one to believe, that contradictions may be true: How will you persuade him out of his error? By showing him, that he grants some true principle that contradicts his error? But if contradictories may be true, and one may at the same time believe them, nothing will force him to leave his error, though it appear to contradict some principle which he grants, because he may believe both his supposed errors, and that principle to betrue; yea he need not believe it to be an error though it contradict some true principle, seeing both parts of contradictories may be true. Choose, which you please. May contradictories be true, or be believed, or no? If they may; then this Reason of yours proves nothing, as I have showed. Can they not be true, nor be believed? then, to make good this Reason, you deny that for which you allege it; and must say that one cannot at the same time believe contradictions; and that if he could do so, this Reason were of no force. A new kind of Logic, to bring a Reason, to prove a Conclusion which must be falls, if the Reason, or Proof for it be of any force? That is, ●o prove that contradictions may be believed, you use an Argument, which (to have any force) must suppose they may not be believed. How will you drive 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 drive him? So, still that which I said is true, That your Arguments, if they prove any thing, must suppose, or prove, the direct contrary of that which you intent to prove by them, and so not help, but overthrew yourself. Secondly; If your Reason be of any force, it can only prove, that by ignorance, one may hold contradictoryes, which was needless to be proved, it being a thing which no man denies. And then, you must either acknowledge a contradiction, or else acknowledge, that you intended to prove, that one may assent to express and known contradictions, but that your Reason proved not so much, as you did mean to prove by it. For, if your purpose was only to prove a possibility of assenting to contradictoryes, not known to be such, you contradict yourself, in saying (N. 47.) Men should not assent to contradictions, and that it is unreasonable to do so; seeing it is evident, in case of probable, or invincible ignorance, a man may, and aught to believe them, and it were unreasonable to do that which all the Reasons that he can consider, tell him, that he is to do as he does, and that it is not in his power to discover his error by any reasons, that can represent themselves to his understanding. It cannot be denied but in that case he proceeds prudently, and safely, and therefore not unreasonably, but as he should do: and yourself confess, that men may innocently (as you speak) be ignorant of the contradiction. Yourself tell us in your next Reason, that we cannot without extreme madness, and uncharitableness, deny, that you believe the Bible, and yet we believe that some part of your doctrine contradicts the Bible. Now seeing this last is certain by evident experience of Protestants, who interpret Scripture so, as what one affirms, an other denies to be the meaning thereof, you must either grant, that men may rationally believe that kind of contradictions, of which we speak, or else with extreme madness, and uncharitableness say, that no Protestant who contradicts an other about the sense of Scripture, does as he should do, but is unreasonable in so doing. Choose then, (I return 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 else 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 believe contradictions, and that it is unreasonable to do so. 30. Your Fifth Reason we have mentioned already, That Protestants believe all that is in the Bible to be true, and yet we say, that they believe divers Doctrines against the Bible, and consequently that they believe Contradictions. But seeing this Reason, if it prove any thing, proves only, that men may assent to Contradictions not known 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 allege it; as I answered to your fourth Reason. 31. Your Sixth Reason, is equally full of impiety, malice, and ignorance: and is answered in a word, That we absolutely are certain, there is implied no Contradiction in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and therefore it cannot serve to prove that men may believe Contradictions. And seeing it speaks only of Contradictions, not expressed in terms, but only involved, it is liable to all the same exceptions, which I have declared against your Fourth, and Fifth Reason. Neither can any expect, or even endure, that here I should write a Book of Transubstantiation. You know learned Catholic Writers, have answered, all that can be objected against us, in that Mystery; and you should have brought as well their answers, as your own objections, if your intention had been to declare the Truth, and not only to be blasphemous. But still you declare, more and more, that you undermine Christian Religion; it being evident to any, who is not ignorant of Philosophy, that whosoever denies the possibility of Transubstantiation, will much more deny other mysteries of Christian Religion as in particular the blessed Trinity, and Incarnation of the Son of God, as shown concerning the B. Trinity, out of Dr. Taylor, and by your own Confession. Who can deny that one Body may be in two places, or two bodies in one; or accidents remain, without substance, or Subject; if he believe, that one individual 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 strange, or difficult, that, an accident should not exist in alio, than that a complete substance should not subsistere per se; and fare more unintelligible, that one Nature should be in three persons, or two natures in one person, than that one Body should be in divers places; there being a more strict connection between Nature, and Hypostasis, than between a Body, and a place. But your conclusion of the (N. 46.) is so patently injurious to Christian Religion, that it is intolerable. You say to Ch. Ma. If you can not compose the repugnance of points implied in Transubstantiation and that after an intelligible manner, than you must give me leave to believe, that either you do not believe Transubstantiation, or else that it is no contradiction, that men should subjugate their understanding to the belief of contradictions. And who I pray, can undertake to answer all arguments, objected against the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation, and other sublime mysteries of Christian Religion, and compose all seeming repugnance, after an intelligible manner, otherwise than by finally captivating our understanding, to the obedience of saith? And if you will not be content without all be declared in an intelligible manner, is it not Hypocrisy in you to say (pag: 376. N 56.) of Scripture? Propose me any thing out of this Book, and require whether I believe it or no, and seem it never so incomprhenssible to Human Reason, I will subscribe it with hand and hart. For, seeing you believe Christian Religion, only with a probable assent for Humane prudential Motives; how can mysteries seeming incomprehensible, and repugnant, to human Reason, be declared not to be repugnant, after an intelligible manner and why should not a confessedly mere probability yield to a seeming evidence, in your grounds, who resolve Faith into Reason, only confessedly probable? And here again I desire you to reflect on your saying; That it is no Contradiction, that men should subjugate their understandings to the belief of Contradictions; Is not this to say; that if it were a contradiction, to subjugate our understanding to contradictions, we could not do it? And yet you teach that we may believe contradictions, and consequently you should say; though it be a contradiction, to subjugate our understandings to contradictions, yet we may do it, because we may believe contradictions; and so you must either deny that men can believe contradictions, or else confess that the said same sentence (It is no contradiction, that men subjugate, their understandings to the belief of Contradictions) destroys itself, as I have showed. 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 believe contradictions, it were impossible to believe them: then every one in his right wits judges it a contradiction, that the same thing should be, and not be, at the same time; he must judge it impossible; and if he judge it impossible, he cannot judge it de facto to be so; and consequently, cannot judge contradictoryes to be true; because it is impossible that a thing be, and not be for the same time, as all Contradictoryes say they are. Into how many precipices do your subtiltyes cast you, and force you to say, and unsay the same thing, in the same words? 32. Your seventh Reason (N. 47.) is this: That Charity Maintained cannot in Charity think that Dr. Usher, and Dr. Potter did not believe what they said, and therefore if their 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 believe, that the Doctors believed contradictions, it will be Charity in you to believe that they did it not wittingly, which you say no man in his right wits, should do; and then your reason proceeds only in contradictions, not expressed, and is answered, confuted and retorted against yourself in the same manner, as your Fourth; Fift; and sixth reasons were. 34. Your (N. 47.) contains a modification of your saying, That one may assent to Contradictions; but a modification, or explication, which contains a plain contradiction, as I have showed in my answer to your fourth reason. And therefore I will say no more of this matter, except to mention in a word, your saying; To believe a contradiction expressed in terms, especially if we believe it to be a contradiction &c: what an expression, or repetition is here? When can one believe a contradiction to be a contradiction, if he believe it not to be such, when it is expressed in terms, It is, it is not? you talk also of nonsense Distinctions; because you love darkness; and in disputation nothing vexeth Protestant's so much, as when Catholics take of the obscurity of their objections, with clear and solid Distinctions, whereby they instantly become silenced ministers. last; (N. 46.) you grant that perhaps Dr. Ushers words (Mark that his words, and 〈◊〉 only he, but these his very words) did suppose that a man may believe all Truth's necessary to salvation, and yet superinduce a damnable Heresy: which being once granted, Charity Maintained had reason to say, that Dr. Usher did utter a contradiction, and proved it, by this clear reason; That there can be no damnable Heresy, unless it contradict some necessary Truth, which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary truths. Now, you grant expressly (Pag: 215. N. 46) That there can be no damnable Heresy, unless it contradict some necessary Truth: And therefore you must grant, that it is contradiction to believe a damnable Heresy, and yet believe all necessary Truths, in regard that if he believe all necessary Truths, he must believe that Truth which is contradictory to that Heresy, which also he believes, and so should believe 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 unreasonable (you should say impossible) for a man in his right wits to believe; and so you forsake your two Dr. Usher, 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. Usher's words, is but a repetition of the former. But this answer destroys 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 thereof? And you took not a fit example out of S. Athanasius his Creed, to prove a mere repetition; you I say, who wickedly hold that Creed (which indeed is a Catholic 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 granted a distinction of Persons, only quoad nomina, and not in reality. For your other vulgar examples, to prove that those latter words, may be only a repetition of the former, you must remember, that in matters of Faith, all show or shadow of contradictions, or falsehood must be carefully avoided, as certainly it is a pernicious thing, to give occasion of believing, that a damnable Heresy, may stand with the belief of all necessary Articles of Faith (and so a formal Heretic may be saved) and nevertheless you do not deny, but that Dr. Usher's words may suppose this. Yet Charity Maintained out of this poison gathered this wholesome doctrine in the same (N. 17.) that, if one believing all Fundamental Articles in the Creed, may superinduce damnable heresies; it follows that the fundamental truths contrary to those damnable heresies, are not contained in the Creed. And so, the Creed cannot be said, to contain all Points, necessary to be believed, which is the main Point in hand. You wonder that Ch. Ma. did nor espy an other contradiction in D. Usher's 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 been 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 any occasion, of making a vain show of your skill in Logic, and Metaphysic, but with how many contradictions, and little credit to yourself, I hope the Reader hath seen 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 up a Religion, of men agreeing in some few, or one Article of belief, that Christ is our Saviour, but for the rest hold conceits, plainly contradictory: which you say is a shameless calumny, not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his own judgement, 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 jesus the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, but also submission to his Doctrine in mind and will. Now I beseech you, Sir, 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 belief of all those Books of Scripture, which were not doubted of in the ancient Church, without danger of damnation? And so the truths wherein they agree amount to many millions etc. 36. Answer. First, Ch: Ma: in the said (N. 18.) doth not ground his Assertion, upon the Doctrine of Hooker, and Morton, but upon the principles of Potter, and Protestants; who hold, that men may be members of the same Church, if they agree in fundamental 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 fundamental. From whence it follows, that although it were granted, that Protestants agree in many Points not fundamental, yet this is merely accidental, and nothing against the Assertion of Ch: Ma: because if once you suppose them to agree in all fundamentals, 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 keep 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 fundamental; yet if they differ but in one fundamental, they cannot be members of the same Church; and so your millions of such points, can avail nothing, either to constitute men members of the same Church, or to hinder them from being so; and therefore 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 therefore the saying of Ch: Ma: is very true, who speaks reservedly, in this manner. According to this Model of Dr. Potter's 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 belief, who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory: so patching up 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 Chimaera, having the head of a man, the neck of a horse etc. For there is greater repugnancy between assent and descent, then between integral parts, as head, neck etc. These words, if you read them with attention, do not affirm what is de facto, but only go upon a supposition, that is, what a Church he would make, if men agreed only in fundamentall points, and for the rest, should hold conceits plainly contradictory; and therefore he useth the word Model, which signifies, not necessarily what is, but what would be, if Potter proceeded according to his own 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 yourself. 37. Secondly I answer; if Ch: Ma: had spoken, not upon mere supposition, but by way of affirmation (as he did not) if he committed any fault, it was, in yielding too much. For indeed Protestants do not agree, even in that fundamental point, that Christ is our Saviour, or in Faith in jesus Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world: I have showed in divers occasions, that they differ toto genere, in their explication, and belief 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 do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is Faith in jesus Christ the Sun of God and Saviour of the world, as may be seen in Ch: Ma: (Part. 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 103.) and since the belief of those Articles, is required to the consticuting of the very essence of a Church in the Lowest degree, and they do not agree in them, it follows, that they do 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. last: If you had a mind to defend Protestants, you should not allege their agreement, in such Points as they have received from us, but in those, wherein Luther, and his fellows forsook the Faith of our Church, (with which all true Christian Churches did clearly agee) and in those, Protestants are so fare from agreement among themselves, that in the chiefest matters, divers of the most learned of them, stand for, us against their pretended Brethren: and universally, it is most true, that their agreement is only actual, and merely accidental; in regard that they acknowledge no living, infallible Judge of Controversyes, to make them agree, in case they should chance to doubt of those points, wherein they casually agree, and so still in actu primo, they are in a disposition to disagree: whereas Catholics, believing an infallible Judge, are in a continual disposition, or a virtual and potential agreement, even in those things, wherein particular persons may happen not to agree: yea those many millions of Truths, which you say are contained in Scripture, could not, for aught Protestants know, be so much as one, if your doctrine were true, that Scripture is not a material object of Faith, which men are obliged to believe. And yet (such is your inconstancy, and spirit of contradicting yourself) you say here: is it not manifest to all the world, that Christians of all Professions do agree with one consent in the belief of all those Books 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 believe in Christ, but of necessity he must do so? Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ, but he must have the same to believe the Scripture. Sr. If all Christians consent in the belief of Scripture, how is not Scripture believed? And if it be believed, how is it not a material object of our belief, or the thing which we believe? Nay, you say, no man at this time can pretend to believe in Christ, but of necessity he must believe the Books of Scripture: and so you declare, that if Christ be a material object of our Faith, the Scripture must also be such. 39 But there remains yet an other contradiction, no less manifest, and more strange, than this, which I now mentioned. Hear you say expressly; no man can pretend to believe in Christ, but of necessity he must believe Scripture: and you prove this your Assertion; because he can have no reason to believe in Christ, but he must have the same to believe the Scripture; which proof (to be of any force) must suppose; that there is always an equal necessity for the belief of those things, for the belief whereof there is an equal Reason: Otherwise, one might have the same reason to believe in Scripture, which he hath to believe in Christ, and yet be obliged to believe in Christ, and not be obliged, nor have an equal necessity, to believe the Scripture, under danger of damnation. Is not all this clear? Now, I beseech you remember, what you writ, (Pag. 116. N. 159.) where you treat 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 prove, that God requires of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein contained, and not the Divine Authority of the Books wherein they are contained. Behold your Assertion, contrary to that which we have heard you say, that the undoubted Books of Scripture were not doubted of without danger of damnation. But let us see, whether as you contradict yourself in your Assertions, you do not the same, in the reason you give for them. You go forward in the said (Pag. 116. N. 159.) and say: Not but that it: were now very strange and unreasonable, if a man should believe the matters of these Books, and not the Authority of the Books: and therefore if a man should profess the not believing of these, I should have reason to fear he did not believe that. But there is not always an equal necessity for the belief whereof there is an equal reason. No? Is there not always an equal necessity for the belief of etc. How then did you prove, that men cannot without danger of damnation, doubt of the Books of Scripture, as he cannot doubt of Christ; because he can have no reason to believe in Christ, but of necessity he must do so, that is, believe the Scripture. 40. Yet, this is not all, that here offers itself about your Contradictions. You say, we have the same reason to believe the undoubted Books of Scripture, which we have for our belief in Christ. I suppose you mean universal Tradition, for which you profess to receive the Scripture. How then were you obliged to believe in Christ and teach that Christ is a material object of our Faith, and yet that Scripture is not such an object, If universal Tradition, be sufficient, to declare an Object to be revealed by God, and the same universal Tr. dition deliver to us Christ, and Scripture, it is a Contradiction to say, the one is revealed (and consequently is a material object of our Faith) and not the other. Or if one be revealed, and not the other, than you contradict your own saying, that there is the same reason for believing them both; seeing the one hath the Formal reason, or Motive of Faith, namely divine Revelation, which the other must want, if you will needs deny it to be a Material 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 upon Cham Ma. for saying, that Protestants are f●rre more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith, than Catholic Divines in Questions merely Philosophical, or not determined by the Church. But Charity Maintained had good reason. For whereas Catholics have an infallible means to know, what Points belong to Faith, they are Religiously careful, 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 certain Rule for interpreting Scripture, must needs be subject to innumerable, and endless diversityes of opinions, which therefore they will esteem 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 probabilities, as men do in Philosophy? For this cause, I have showed heretofore, that learned Protestants, speaking of the points wherein 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 part of Faith, but curious niceties. Which shows, that Protestants, speak and proceed, with greater liberty, in matters concerning Faith, than Catholics do 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 this; Catholics in Questions of Philosophy, bejond the Direction of Faith, to which all Philosophy ought to submit, have also the light of Reason, and evident Principles of demonstrations, for their guide; whereas the mysteries of Faith, being sublime, and obscure, and Protestants having no infallible means, not to err in the interpretation of Scripture, they are left to their own freedom, or rather fancy, incomparably more than Catholics are left to themselves in Philosophical disputes, wherein they are restrained, and kept within compass, both by Divine Faith, and Human Reason, subjected to Faith. It is true, when they will defend their defection, and Schism, from all Churches, extant when Luther appeared, they will seem to make great account, of all points, though they be not Fundamental; but this very thing, doth indeed give them greater freedom, to multiply opinyons, and increase dissensions, not only with us, but amongst themselves, upon pretence of piety, and necessity to forsake all errors, either of Catholics, or Protestants. I know not to what purpose you say: Is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and descent, your affirmation and negation your Est, Est, Non, Non, as there is between theirs? For this is not the Question, but whether, we do, or have the freedom to descent, as much as Protestants do, and have liberty, to disagree both from us, and amongst themselves; and I have proved that we have not: and then I hope there is not as great repugnancy, between our Est, Est, as between the Est, and Non Est, of Protestants. The rest of this Number makes nothing against what I have said, and therefore 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. said truly, that while Protestants stand only upon Fundamental Articles, they do by their own confession destroy the Church, which is the House of God. For the foundation alone of a house, is not a house, nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect salvation, than the foundation alone of a house is sit to afford a man, habitation. To this you say to Charity Maintained; 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 Fundamental Articles, we mean all those which are necessary: Unless 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; seeing you know Charity Maintained disputes in that place expressly, against Protestants, who pretend to Brotherhood, Unity of Faith, and Hope of salvation, in virtue of their agreement in Fundamental Articles, though they differ in many other Points of Faith. This state of the Question being supposed, and evidently true; 〈◊〉 you mean (for you speak very confusedly, in saying only, By Fundamental Artitles, we mean all those which are necessary) If I say, you mean that Fundamental and necessary points are the same, and that all points sufficiently proposed as revealed by God are necessary to be believed (and consequently Fundamental) you fight for Charity Maintained, and grant, that Protestants disagreeing in points revealed, differ in necessary and Fundamental points, and cannot be of the same Church, nor hope for salvation. For you must give me leave 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 Fundamental of their own nature, and are to be believed explicitly; then also you grant, that which Charity Maintained affirmed; that the Church, or house of Protestants, consists only in the foundation, seeing they may differ in other Points not fundamental, and yet remain a Church. But then how can this agree, with your Doctrine, that every error against any revealed Truth, is of itself damnable? Can it be a house of God, which opposes God's Testimony, and is not capable of salvation without repentance of its damnable errors? Have we not often cited Dr. Potter teaching (Pag: 212.) that whatsoever is revealed in Scripture is in some sense Fundamental, that is such as may not be denied without infidelity And (Pag: 250.) he says plainly: It is Fundamental to a Christians Faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed Truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they are from God. Do not these words declare, that though Protestants were supposed to believe all Points fundamental of their own nature, yet they are guilty of infidelity (according to Dr. Potter,) and want something Fundamental 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 resolve? If errors in points not fundamental, may stand with the substance of the same Faith, Church, and hope of salvation in those who agree in Fundamental Articles, than you must yield to Charity Maintained saying, that the Church of protestants is a House builded by the foundation only, and yet you pretend to take in ill part this saying of his. If you affirm, that for constituting the Church, or house of God, there is also required agreement in points not Fundamental, you overthrew the main tenet of Protestants, that they are Brethren, and have the same substance of Faith, though they differ in such unfundamentall points; and if you turn about to agree with them, that men may be of the same Church, and hope for salvation, for the only belief of fundamental points, though they differ in non-fundamentalls, you contradict yourself, and Dr. Potter, who sayeth it is infidelity, and damnable, and a Fundamental error to disbelieve any point, sufficiently propounded as revealed by God. So that upon the whole matter, you perforce stand for Charity Maintained whom you impugn, and overthrow Potter, Yourself, and Protestants, whom you undertake to defend. To all this I add; that Charity Maintained might have said, not only that as the foundation of a House is not a House, so the belief of only fundamental points, cannot make a Church, but also that seeing it is fundamental to a Christians Faith, not to deny any point revealed by God (as we have seen in Potter's assertion) it follows, 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 Fundamental Articles means all those which are necessary. But, by your leave, in this you falsify both the Doctor, and Ch. Ma. who cited the words of Potter as you acknowledge he doth, that by fundamental doctrines we understand 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 sayeth not that all necessary Articles are fundamental, but only that all fundamental Articles are necessary to be believed distinctly, and explicitly; and so he speaks (Pag: 213.) Fundamental properly is that which Christians are obliged to believe by an express and actual Faith. Now I hope, Protestants will not deny, that it is necessary to believe every Text of Scripture, and yet will not affirm that every Text of Scripture is a Fundamental point, to be believed by an express and actual Faith; Therefore necessary, and Fundamental according to the explication of the Doctor, do 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 show so much choler, bitterness, and ill language, that the best answer will be to apply myself only to the matter, desiring the Reader, to consider the points, which I shall set down, and he will find 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 speak, to the Scripture for his satisfaction, you must assure him, that it is the word of God, which you confess we can only learn from the Church, and then if he be indeed a considering man, it will instantly infer, 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 therein; and as you say, he may know that the Church holds such books to be canonical, so by the like Tradition he may know, what she holds in points of Doctrine, and either believe her in them, or not believe her in delivering the canon of Scripture. Besides of whom shall he learn the sense of Scripture, or who will oblige him even to read Scripture? Seeing in the principles of Protestants, he cannot learn any such precept, except from Scripture itself; and he cannot be obliged to find that precept in Scripture, unless aforehand he knows independently of Scripture, that there is such a precept, which as I said, is against the principles of Protestants. Moreover, yourself teach, that the Scripture is a necessary introduction to Faith, and therefore a man must first learn the Church, and of the Church, before you can in wisdom refer him to the Scripture. Which is also conform to Dr. Potter's assertions, if he will not contradict himself. 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 kind of Faith) upon Novices (and we speak of such) weaklings, and doubters in the Faith; to instruct and confirm them till they may acquaint themselves with, and understand the Scripture. Therefore men must first be referred to the Church, and not to the Scripture, as Potter in the same place sayeth expressly: The Testimony of the present Church, though it be not the last resolution of our Faith, yet it is the first external motive to it. 46. Secondly, you say to Charity Maintained; To the next question; cannot General Counsels err? You pretend he answers § 19 they may err damnably. Let the Reader see the place, and he shall find damnably is your addition. 47. Answer. Amongst the Errata, or faults of the Print, Charity Maintained notes this, in the (Pag: 136. Lin. 22.) Damnably. Corrige, damnably. I mean 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 sayeth Charity Maintained in the correction of the Errata: where you see, he was scrupulous, not to add 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: sayeth) but his words in this very place at which you carp, signify no less, yea more. For Changed Ma: citys these words out of Potter (Pag: 167.) General Counsels may weakly, or wilfully misapply, or misunderstand, or neglect Scripture, and so err. Now what difference is there to say, a general Council may err by wilfully misapplying, or misunderstanding, or neglecting, Scripture, and a Council may err damnably? Is it not damnable, wilfully to misapply or misunderstand, or neglect Scripture? Nay wilfully expresses more than damnably; because one may err damnably, if his error be culpable by reason of some weakeness, (which D. Potter distinguisheth from wilfulness) or for sloth, humane respects, of hope, fear etc. and yet not be so culpable, as when it proceeds from wilfulness: and therefore Charity Maintained might have said, that in the doctrine of Potter, General Counsels may err more than damnably. Have we not heard the Doctors words (Pag. 212.) whatsoever is Revealed in Scripture is such as can not be denied or Contradicted without infidelity? And shall not a wilful misapplying, or neglect of God's Word be damnable, and more than simply damnable, even infidelity? The Doctor teaches, that the universal Church cannot err fundamentally, but he neither doth, nor can say (according to the doctrine of Protestants) that Counsels cannot err fundamentally, and if Fundamentally, surely damnably. But why do I spend time in this? Yourself here (N. 53.) confess, that to say Prelates of God's Church meeting in a Lawful Council may err damnably, is not false for the matter, but only it is false, that Dr. Potters says it (A great wrong to say the Doctor speaks a truth, which he himself teaches!) and so finally Charity Maintained said not so much as he might have said of Potter's assertion, and therefore was far enough from doing him any wrong. 48. Thirdly. Seeing that one must not, at first, be referred to Scripture, as we have proved, nor to General Counsels, which Dr. Potter says may err weakly, and so be deceived, and wilfully, and so deceive, nor that he can consult with the whole Church collectiuè or all together, as you grant the Doctor says; what remains, but that he must deal a part with every particular member of the Church? Which being also impossible, as is clear of itself (and when you seek to prove it, you labour for your Adversary, who sayeth the very same thing) it remains, that all the ways which Potter can propose, to a man, desirous to save his soul, are not only ineffectual, but impossible also, and only chalk out a way to desperation, and that He, and other Protestants, must have 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 between the universal Church, and the whole Church militant, but only (Pag. 137.) citys the Doctors words, as he finds them, and proves, that they cannot serve, for the effect, of quieting an afflicted soul, not regarding whether those different words, which he useth, signify any different thing, or no. 49. Fourthly; in pursuit of some good and infallible ground, whereon to settle Divine Faith, Potter can admit none but the Scripture, or the universal Church, and that Scripture cannot instruct us with certainty, independently of the Church, as we have demonstrated; nor that the whole Church can be consulted; it remains only, that he must wish one to find out some, who believes all fundamentall points, and follow him, and that then the first question to pass between them should be, to know whether he knows all such points, and if this cannot be known, it is clear the Doctor can give no satisfaction, to any considering man, desirous to know the truth. It is pretty that you tell us, the Doctor in all his Book, gives no such Answer as this, procure to know whether he believe all fundamental 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 Himself: And you will never be able to show, but that Potter must make such answers, as Ch: ma: expressed, if the Doctor will be faithful to his own grounds. Your discourse about probabilities, and even wagers, is impertinent; both because we deny, that indeed Dr. Potter's opinion about the Creed, hath any probability at all, and because Ch: Ma: speaks only of probabilities, and even wagers, which is a good comparison, seeing a thing very probable, doth not hinder but that the contradictory may be very probable, and so be even or equal one to an other; and your talking of probability in the highest degree, is your own addition, or fiction, and not the Doctor's Assertion, as may be seen in his (Pag. 241.) and yourself expressly confess, (N. 4. and 5. Pag. 194.) that he affirmed it only, to be very probable, that the Creed contains all necessary points, of those, which you call Credenda. What you writ so often about the uncertainty that one is a Pope, hath been answered at large. 50. Fiftly. Who can deny, but that whosoever desires to be saved, and knows that to obtain salvation, it is necessary to believe explicitly all fundamental points, will instantly judge it necessary, to know what those points be, as de facto, Ch. Mist. urged to have a Catalogue of them? Now, if to satisfy this demand, Dr. Potter gives us no other answer, but only some Definitions, and Descriptions, or Explications of the name Fundamental, without specifying, what they are in particular, and so not satisfy at all the desire of any wise man, what can I help that? Or who can blame Ch: Ma: for having said, as much as Dr. Potter's Book could enable him to say? Neither hath he patched up any thing, out of the Doctors Book, which he (the Doctor) is not obliged to grant, according to his own grounds, as I have said. 51. Sixthly; every article contained in the Creed is not Fundamental, it would be demanded with Ch. Ma. How shall one know, which in particular be, and which be not fundamental? You say, Dr. Potter would have answered: it is a vain question: believe all, and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamental. But by your leave, this business cannot be dispatched to soon. For by occasion of your Answer, I must make some demands; whether every one is obliged, to believe, or know explicitly those points of the Creed, which are not fundamental. To say, every one is bound; were to make them properly Fundamental. For we have heard Potter saying, Fundamental properly is that, which Christians are obliged to believe by an express and actual Faith. If one be not obliged, to believe explicitly those points of the Creed which are not fundamental, than 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 contains fundamental points, which I am bound to know expressly, and so I shall, at lest per accidens, and by consequence, be obliged to know all points contained in the Creed, as well not Fundamental as Fundamental. This Answer must suppose, that I am obliged under damnation, to know that Symbol, which we call the Creed of the Apostles; and seeing Protestants profess, that all things necessary to Salvation, are contained in Scripture alone, they must show out of some express, 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 therefore one cannot be obliged to know points not Fundamental, in virtue of a precept to know the Creed, seeing Protestants cannot believe any command, obliging men to know the Creed etc. Besides, All the Arguments, which prove that the Creed was composed by the Apostles, or that it contains all fundamental points, must be grounded upon the Authority of the Church, which according to Potter, and other Protestants, may err in points not fundamental, and none of them affirms, that it is a fundamental point, which all under damnation, are bound explicitly to believe, that the Apostles composed the Creed, or that it contains all fundamental points; and then, men, cannot be sure, that all points contained in it, are true; and much less can they be obliged, to believe explicitly, by an act of Faith, every Article thereof, according to the grounds of Protestants. Moreover, suppose one were persuaded, that all the Articles contained in the Creed were true, yet the arguments which Potter brings, from the say of ancient Fathers, and modern 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 keep their liberty. Melior est conditio possidentis. And Potter himself confesses it to be only probable, that the Creed contains all fundamental points, and so he cannot oblige men to know the Creed, because it only probably contains all necessary Articles. If then you cannot prove, that any is obliged to know the Creed, in vain do you say, believe all, and you shall be sure to believe all that is Fundamental: but you must say the direct contrary; Men are not in the Principles of Protestants obliged to believe the Creed; Therefore they are not obliged to believe, by it, any point, Fundamental, or not Fundamental. You say, Dr. Potter says no where, that all the Articles of the Creed, are fundamental; Neither doth Ch. Ma. ever affirm, that he says so; but the thing being of itself true, (and you expressly confess it to be true) He had reason, joining it with other principles of the Doctor, to frame such a Dialague as he did, between Potter, and some desirous to find the Truth. And now, I hope it appears, that you had no reason to accuse Ch, Ma. of un-ingenious dealing, sit for a Fair, or Comedy; of sirang immodesty; of adding to the Doctor's words; of injustice; of blind zeal, 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 appears 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 fool. But if he does not, then: But. I for bear you. These be your modest epethitons. You say, that we Catholics, interpret those divine prescriptions (Matth: 5.) to be no more than Counsels. But I pray, what Catholic ever taught, that our Saviour delivered only a Counsel, when he said; whosoever shall say to his brother, thou fool, shall be guilty of hell fire? But all the rest of your acerbity, is nothing to that fearful denunciation which you utter against Ch. Ma. that our errors (as you call them) you fear, will be certainly destructive to such as he is, that is, to all those, who have eyes to see and will not see. 52. In your (N. 64.) you cavil, that Ch. Ma. promises to answer D. Potter's Arguments against that which he (Ch. Ma.) said before. But presently forgetting himself, in stead of answering the Doctor's 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 perform (N. 21.22.27.) and N. 23. he gins to answer the Doctor's positive Arguments alleged to prove, that the Creed contains all fundamental Articles of Faith. And the Confutations of the Doctor's objections are so strong, that you abandon your Client, and tell us, that he rather glances at then builds upon them; that they were said ex abundanti, and therefore that you conceive 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 entreat the Reader to peruse the (N. 21.22.27. of Ch. Ma.) and he will find, that Dr. Potter needed a Defence, which will be suspected you did not give, 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 explicitly believed. And How ought Protestant's to accept this answer; who teach that we can believe nothing belonging to Christian Faith, but by Scripture alone, which if they believe not Actually, nor are bound to believe it, how can they Actually believe, or be obliged to believe the contents thereof? If the Church in your opinion, be not infallible, and that men are not obliged to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, and infallible (which to them, who believe is not it all one, as if it were not) what certainty can Protestants have, either that the Creed contains all fundamental Articles of simple belief, or that those which it contains, are true? you say Gregory of Valentia, seems to confess, the Creeds being collected out of Scripture, and supposing the Authority of it. But Valentia (2.2. Disp. 1. Quest. 1. Punct. 4.) said only, that the Creed contains those things, which are in different places contained in Scripture, which is evidently true; but he sayeth not; the Creed was collected out of Scripture, which was written after the Creed was composed; one thinghe sayeth, which had been more for your purpose to observe, that in believing the Creed, we are to regard the sense. Non enim (sayeth he) sufficit haerere in cortice verborum. 54. Subtract from your (N. 65.) what hath been answered already, or may be answered by a mere denial, or which implies a begging of the Question, there will remain only your saying (which yet I cannot say deserves any answer) that Ch. Ma. speaks that which is hardly sense, in calling the Creed an abridgement 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 therefore it is not an abridgement of them: Those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therefore is not an abridgement of them. If you would call it now an abridgement of the Faith, this would be sense, and signify thus much, That all the necessary Articles of Christian Faith are comprised in it. For it is the proper duty of abridgements, to leave out nothing necessary, and to take in nothing unnecessary. 55. Answer; this your subtlety is so far from being of any solidity, that it overthrows all abridgements, contradicts Dr. Potter, and yourself, and proves, that the Creed performs not the proper duty of an abridgement, as you say it is; and therefore you are injurious to, it and the composers thereof. First your objection may be made against every Abredgment, by demanding, whether it be an abridgement 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 therefore it is not an abridgement of them: Those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them. Secondly; you contradict Dr. Potter, who sayeth, (Pag: 234.) The Creed is an abstract or Abridgement of such necessary Doctrines as are delivered in Scripture, or collected out of it: And Charity Maintay. sayeth, it is an abridgement of some articles, and so the words of the Doctor are more restrained and limited, than those of Ch. Ma. who specified not necessary Doctrines, but used the sign, some, which abstracts from necessary or not necessary, and in that sense is more illimited, and may be better divided into divers members or parts, and so more capable of being compendiated, than if it were more simple and individed, and as it were of itself a compendium, before it could be compendiated. Now I pray you tell the Doctor of Divinity, that he speaks that which is hardly sense: and demand of him; these necessary Doctrines, of which you say the Creed is an abridgement, which are they? Those that are out of the Creed, or those that are in it? Those that are in it, it comprehends at large and therefore, it is not an abridgement of them. Those that are out of it, it comprehends not at all, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them. Thirdly: yourself in the beginning of this Chapter (N. 1. and 5.) say, that the Doctor's Assertion is, that the Creed is a Summary of all those Doctrines (or Credenda) which all men are bound particularly to believe, 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 etc. and so apply your Argument against yourself, and the Doctor. In this very place you say, if it be called an abridgement of the Faith, this would be sense. But if this would be sense, I am sure your objection can have none. For then again ask of yourself, whether it be an abridgement, 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 own objection, must be answered by yourself. Besides, is it an abridgement of all, or of some part of the Faith? You will not say it is an abridgement of all the Faith, seeing you confess, that much of the Faith is not in the Creed, namely those points which you call agenda, and you tell us, it cannot be an abridgement of such articles as it comprehends not. If then it be not an abridgement of all articles of Faith, and yet is an abridgement of Faith, as you confess; it must be an abridgement of some Articles of Faith, which are the very words and proposition of Ch. ma. which you impugn and say, it is hardly sense. Fourthly. Having told us that all the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith are comprised in the Creed, you add; for this is the proper duty of abridgements to leave out nothing necessary, and to take in nothing unnecescessary. Now, you grant, that there are in the Creed, some articles not necessary, or Fundamental, therefore the Creed or the composers thereof, failed in the proper duty of abridgements, or if you deny this consequence you must deny your own words, that the proper duty of abridgements is to take in nothing unnecessary; or finally deny, that which you expressly grant, that in the Creed there are some points unfundamentall, and so heap contradiction upon contradiction. On the other side, Agenda are necessary, and yet are not contained in the Creed, and so neither part of your proper duty of abridgements is true. The truth is you abuse the word necessary, not distinguishing between necessary to be believed, and necessary to be set down in the Creed, For neither is it necessary, that all necessary points of belief be expressed in the Creed (as you confess Agenda are not) nor is it necessary, that no point unfundamentall, or unnecessary, be set down therein: only it was necessary for the Apostles, to set down all that, which the Holy Ghost moved them to express, with which it is also necessary for us to be content: notwithstanding your topical humane reasons to the contrary. But what answer shall we give to your objection? Truly it is so easy a task, that I scarcely judge it necessary to give any at all. For what is more easy, then to say? The Creed is an abridgement of some Articles, not because it doth not contain them, but because it contains them not at large, with explanations, proofs, illustrations, deductions, sequels, conclusions, and the like. For if one set down at large, all that he pretends to abridge, he is not an Abbreviator, but an Amanuensis, or Copist. And in this I may allege yourself, who in this very Chapter (N. 31.) say; Summaries must not omit any necessary Doctrine of that Science whereof they are Summaries, though the Illustrations and Reasons of it they may omit. Thus than the Creed may be an abridgement of some Articles, both fundamental, and not fundamental, without any such nonsense, as you are pleased to object. But surely it will seem somewhat strange to say, as you do, Those Articles that are in the Creed it comprehends at large, and therefore it is not an abridgement of them: as if nothing can be set down in the Creed, or any other writing, clearly, and particularly, but it must be set down at large; which is to take away all brief and compendious treatises; and therefore, as I said, yourself must answer your own objection. Out of what we have said, is answered your (N. 66.) wherein you, and the Doctor, must either suppose, and beg the question, in supposing that all points of simple belief are contained in the Creed, or else his Argument 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 plain and convincing Arguments, are nothing but plain beggings of the question, and suppose that the whole way to heaven; all Articles of Faith; the whole Counsel of God; all necessary matters; are contained in the Creed; which you know is the thing controverted. The Doctor should first have proved, that the Creed contains all necessary points, and then have urged those his interrogations: May the Churches of after ages make the narrow way to heaven narrower than our Saviour left it etc. Do not you, and the Doctor, acknowledge, that men cannot come to heaven by believing only the contents of the Creed, but must also believe Agenda? and besides the Faith of both these kinds of Articles, they must keep the commandments, and so the Doctor, must answer his own interrogations: and he himself was guilty of what I have said; I mean, that all his interrogations could be to no purpose, unless first it be proved, that the Creed contains all necessary points. For this cause (Pag. 222.) after he had, in a concionatory way, made his interrogations, he saith: All that can be replied 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 remains that all his interrogations were fully answered; the very foundation, upon which they stood (that the Creed contains 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? Seeing yourself acknowledge, that he professes the Creed to contain 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 Catholic Creeds of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesius, Chalcedon, and Athanasius, which are his own words (Pag: 216.) and therefore he must answer his own demand, What tyranny is it to impose any new unnecessary matters etc. Since the declaration of those Counsels, were long after the Apostles time: and for this cause, you expressly profess, to forsake the Doctor, in this his explication of the Creed, as we have seen heretofore. 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 gloss of his own (needful for our salvation.) For the Apostle both in our translation, and in the Protestant English Bible, hath, profitable, not, needful, and yourself here (N. 69.) grant the same. And speaking in rigour, that which is strictly profitable, is not needful, or necessary, nor that which is properly needful, is profitable, as profitable and needful, are membra contradistincta, as when we distinguish Means to some End, that some are profitable, others necessary; and you know it is in Logic no good division, wherein one of the membra dividentia includes the other; and therefore, your saying to Ch: Ma: I hope you will make no difficulty to grant that whatsoever is needful for salvation is very profitable, is spoken with greater confidence, than truth. But for our present purpose, seeing the Apostle (Uers. 20.) saith, I have withdrawn nothing that was profitable, and saith not, I have withdrawn nothing that was needful, it follows, that the Apostle taught, not only necessary, but also profitable things; and thence I infer, that when he saith (V. 27.) I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God, he meant not only of necessary, but also of profitable points, and therefore of more them are contained in the Creed. For which cause he (C Ma.) had reason to take notice of this place in particular, which clearly shows, out of the very text of Scripture, which Potter citys, his interrogations to be of no force, but only to beg the question, by supposing untruly, that whatsoever the Apostles revealed to the Church, is contained in the Creed. To salve this you say (N. 70.) It is not D. Potter that begs the Question, but you that mistake it, which is not here in this particular place, whether all points of simple Belief necessary for the salvation of the primitive Christians were contained in the Apostles Symbol? (for that and the proofs of it follow after in the next (§ Pag. 223. of Dr. Potter:) but whether any thing can be necessary for Christians to believe now which was not so from the beginning. 58. Answer. Dr. Potter (Pag: 216.217.) sayeth: The Creed of the Apostles is said generally by the Schoolmen and Fathers, to comprehend a perfect Catalogue of Fundamental truths; and to imply a full rejection of Fundamental heresies: and hath been received by Orthodox Christians, as an absolute summary of the Christian Faith. For proof whereof, we will first argue ad hominem and teach the Mistaker how to esteem of his Creed, out of his own Masters. And then having alleged divers Catholic Writers, to prove his Assertion, he adds; it were easy to multiply testimonies to this effect, out of their late and ancient school Doctors if it were not tedious. All agree that the Creed briefly comprehends all Fundamental principles or rudiments of Faith; that it is a distinctive Character severing Orthodox believers from insidels and heretics, that it is a full, perfect, and sufficient summary of the Catholic Faith. Thus he. And immediately after saith: Their judgement (that is the judgement of Catholic Authors whom he alleged) herein that is for the purpose of proving the Creed to contain all Fundamental Articles, seems full of reason. And his reasons he sets down in these words immediately following: For how can it be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed, than the Apostles had, and the Church of their times? May the Church of after ages make the narrow way to heaven, narrower than our Saviour left it? And so he goes on with his interrogations, and in the same context hath these words of which we speak; The Apostles profess they revealed to the Church the whole counsel of God keeping back nothing needful 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 speak expressly of the Apostles Creed, when he saith, How can it be necessary for any Chrictian to have more in this Creed then the Apostles had, and the Church of their time? And do not you (N. 15.) expressly understand these words of the Doctor of the Apostles Creed, as it is a full comprehension of that part of the belief of the Apostles which contains only the necessary articles of simple Faith? And consequently when the Doctor asks, How can it be necessary for any Christian to have more in his Creed then the Apostles had, his demand must be; How can it be necessary for any Christian, to believe more than the Creed contains? Which evidently supposes, that the Creed contains all things necessary; otherwise it might be necessary, to believe some thing, not contained in the Creed. Besides, what connexion can there be in the Doctors words, taken in your sense, which will make him argue in this manner? No Christian is obliged to believe more than the Apostles believed, who certainly believed more than is contained in the Creed, Therefore the judgement of those who teach that the Creed contains all Fundamental points is full of reason. And indeed the Doctor had no occasion at all, to prove, that it can not be necessary, for any Christian, to believe more than the Apostles did believe, neither did Changed Ma: say any such thing. And why do you (N. 67.) exact of C Ma: an answer to D. Potter's interrogations, if they prove only, that no Christian is obliged to believe more than the Apostles believed, which as I said Ch: Ma: never denied. Will you have him (C: Ma:) confute his own judgement, and answer those arguments, which were intended only to prove his own belief? Thus while you will be clearing the Doctor, from begging the question, you make him with great pains, and pomp of words, make many pathetical interrogations nothing to the purpose, and grant that which is the only main point, that those his interrogations, prove not, that all fundamental points be contained in the Creed. Choose of these inconveniences which you please. Truly I cannot imagine, that any man would have dreamt, that Dr. Potter did not intent, by those interrogations, to prove that the Creed contains all fundamental points; whether we consider the only question in hand, or the clear connexion, and thread of his words, as I have showed, and that all his interrogations tended to make good, that no Christian can be obliged to believe more, as necessary, than 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 prove so much by his interrogations, though, I grant, he failed in his proofs and performance of his intention; which he perceiving, did afterward seek to corroborate them with other reasons; which consideration, beside what hath been said, doth evidently declare, that in his interrogations he intended to persuade us, that the Creed contains all necessary points of Faith. For let us suppose with you, that his purpose was only to prove, that no Christian is bound to believe more than the Apostles believed, and not, that no Christian is bound to believe more than the 〈◊〉, with what connexion, or sense, could Potter say immediately after those interrogations? All that can be replied 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 plainly tell us that the Sum and Substance of their Credenda is comprised in it? If Potter in his interrogations, meant only to prove, that no Christian is bound to believe more them the Apostles believed, how did he imagine, that it could be replied, against that discourse, and 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, aimed at no such matter? Or to what purpose doth the Doctor as soon as he had said, that nothing could be reply to his discoursed, except that the whole Faith of those times, is not contained in the Apostles Creed, instantly set himself to prove, that the Creed contains the Sum, 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 understood of the whole extent of the Apostles belief) though it were supposed, that the Creed contains not all fundamental points of Faith. For whether it contained them or no, it is most true, that no Christian is obliged, to believe more than the Apostles believed of things, contained, and not contained, in the Creed. Look now whether I may not retort the words which you direct against Charity Maintain? Consider I pray a little better, and then I hope you will acknowledge, that there was not Petitio principij in Dr. Potter, but rather Ignoratio Elencht, in you. 59 You do but lose time, in proving, that S. Paul (Act: 20.) spoke to the Pastors, yet that he spoke of what he taught not only them, but also the Laity as well as them. And you wonder Charity Maintained should read the Text so negligently, as not to observe it. Ch. Ma. never said, that the Apostle spoke to the Pastors only, or that he instructed them only, but that the said words were directed particularly to the Pastors or Governors of the Church, and yourself grant the Apostle did all these things (of which he speaks) to the Pastors among the rest, nay above the rest: and therefore C: Ma: did clearly deduce, that the Doctor could not collect from those words, that the Apostle spoke of things necessary, for all sorts of persons, to believe; seeing (Pag; 244.) He acknowledges, that more knowledge is necessary in Bishops, and Priests, to whom is committed the government of the Church, then in vulgar Laics, as Charity Maintained observes; and consequently, he could not gather out of those words, what points be necessary for all, and much less that all necessary points are contained in the Creed. In a word, the Apostle spoke of more than all are obliged to believe, and more than is contained in the Creed, and therefore, Potter could not prove by those words, that if it were necessary for every one, to believe more than is contained in the Creed, every one must believe more, or as much, as the Pastors are obliged to believe. 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 mere denial. For that the Ancient Church appointed her infants to be instructed for matters of simple belief only in the Creed, and admitted her Catechumen unto baptism and strangers to her communion, upon their only profession of the Creed, is evidently false. For how many notorious heretics pretend to believe the Creed? Which therefore alone, without other knowledge, and circumstances of the persons, etc. could not be sufficient to admit strangers into the communion of the Church: and who knows not that Catechumen are instructed, in many more points of Faith, then are expressed in the Creed? Infants, if you speak properly cannot be instructed in the Creed, or any other part of Christian Faith? Their Patrini surely know more points of Faith, than the Creed alone. But why did you not confute the answer, which you confess Ch: Ma: gives to Potter's Fourth Reason about the letters called formatae, which contain more than the Creed, as may be seen in Charity Maintained (Par: 2. P: 171.) and it will be found, that you had reason to dissemble his discourse, which proves, that more was required to be believed then only the Creed, as appears even by Potter himself, speaking of those letters (Pag: 224.) in these words: If in those letters he did profess entirely to adhere to the Catholic Creeds, his profession and person was accepted as sound and Orthodox. Where you see the belief of more Creeds was required, then of the Apostles Creed only. 61. Although the rest of the numbers in this Chapter, contain no particular difficulty, which may not be solved, by our former grounds, and therefore might well be omitted, especially seeing you, and the Doctor, grant as much, as is more than sufficient, for our main purpose, that in vain Protestants allege their belief of the Creed, to show that they agree in all Fundamental points of Faith, and it appears very clear of itself, seeing it contains not all essential 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 lie in order. Divers Points, which have connexion, or were circumstances of the Articles set down in the Creed, might have been expressed, besides those which are specified in it, and therefore Ch. Ma. may still ask, why some such are expressed, and others are not; and you must finally answer, with Ch. Ma., that the Apostles set down those Points Fundamental, and not Fundamental, which the Holy Ghost inspired them to deliver; as you say, they were inspired to set down Credenda, and not Agenda, though these be of no less importance, and necessity than those, and you still beg the Question (N. 75.) that the end which the Apostles proposed, was to set down all necessary points of Faith. The reasons which you give (N. 76.) why some mysteries were omitted, and others set down, can only be congruences of that which is done de facto, and not arguments convincing that they could not have done otherwise, then they did, and if they had set down others, and not these, there could not have 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 judgement of the Ancient; as may be seen in Cornelius a Lapide (in Matth. Chap. 2.) citing by name the Saints, Cyprian, Basil, Chrisostom. Hierom, Hilary, and Tertullian, Isidore, Beda, Idacius. The words which you cited out of Gordonius Huntlaeus (Contr: 2. Cap. 10. N. 10.) that the Apostles were not so forgetful, after the receiving of the holy Ghost, as to leave out any prime and Principal Foundation of Faith, make nothing for your purpose; seeing we dispute not whether any prime or principal foundation of Faith be left out (for we acknowledge that the Creed expresses the Creator of all things, and Redeemer of mankind, as also the Blessed Trinity, Resurrection, Catholic Church, Remission of sins, and life everlasting, which of themselves, are prime and principal foundations of our Faith, if they be understood, according to the interpretation, and tradition of the Church) but whether any necessary, (though not prime, and principal) be left out; and that may well be necessary, which is not prime and principal, as many parts are necessary to make a house, which are not the prime, and principal parts thereof. Yet indeed Gordonius in that 10. Chapter, assigns the properties of the foundation of Faith, that is, of that Authority upon 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 sayeth, the Apostles could not leave out of their Creed (in quo continentur omnia prima fundamenta Fidei) this primum & praencipuum Fidei fundamentum. Where you see he speaks 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 have declared heretofore: which being well considered (particularly that Article of the Catholic Church) will demonstrate, that the Creed, together with those means, which are afforded us by tradition &c: for the true understanding thereof, and undoubted supplying of what is not contained in it, is of no less use, and profit, then if all points had been expressed, which indeed had been to little purpose, yea would have proved noxious, by the malice of men, without the declaration of the Church, for the Orthodox sense, and meaning of them. 62. You do not well in saying, that Charity Maintained denies this consequence of Dr. Potter (That as well, nay better, they might have given no Article but that of the Church, and sent us to the Church for all the rest. For in setting down others besides that, and not all, they make us believe we have all, when we have not all) and neither gives reason against it, nor satisfies his reason for it. For Charity Maintained performs both those things, neither of which you say he performs, as every one may see, who reads his (N. 29.) to say nothing, that in good Logic the defendant is not obliged to give a reason, why he denies a consequence, it being reason sufficient, that the opponent, or disputant proves it not; though yet indeed Charity Maintained doth show the insufficiency of the Doctor's inference, by giving the like consequences, which confessedly cannot be good, and yourself endeavour to answer the reasons of Charity Maintained, which he brought against the said inference of Potter. You say, If our doctrine were true this short Creed, I believe the Roman Church to be infallible, would have been better, that is, more effectual, to keep the believers of it from heresy, and in the true Faith, than this Creed which now we have: a proposition so evident, that I cannot see, how either you, or any of your religion or indeed any sensible man can from his hart deny it. Yet because you make show of doing so, or else, which I rather hope, do 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, prove vain. You say: If our doctrine were true, this short Creed, I believe the Roman Church to be infallible, would have been botter, that is, more effectual to keep the believes of it from heresy, and in the true Faith, than this Creed which now we have. But this ground of yours is evidently false. For the effect, or Fruit, or Goodness, or Betterness (so to speak) of the Creed, is not sufficiently explicated, by being more effectual to keep men from heresy, and in the true Faith, but it implies also, some particular articles, which are to be believed, in the belief of which, that we may not err, the infallibility of the Church directs and secures us, which office she might, and would, have performed, although this Article, I believe the Catholic Church directs, and secures us, had not been expressed in the Creed: yea that article, and the whole Creed, supposes the infallibility of the Church to have been proved, and believed antecedenter to them, that so we may be assured, all the contents thereof, to be infallibly true. Now by the precise belief of that Creed, which you propose, taken alone, we could not believe any particular article of Faith; because this precise act, I believe the Church to be infallible, terminates in that one object of the infallibility of the Church, from which I grant the belief of other particular objects may be derived, when the Church shall propose them, but then ipso facto, we should begin to believe other particular objects, and so have an other Creed, and not that little one, of which you speak, and besides which, we are obliged to believe other particular revealed Truths; and therefore we must still have some other Creed, or Catechism, or what you would have it called, besides that one article of the Catholic Church, as Charity Maintained observes (Pag: 144.) and consequently, though that article of the Church, have that great, and necessary effect, of keeping us from heresy, and in the true Faith; yet it wants that other property of a Creed, of setting down particular Truths. Whence it follows, that that article alone cannot be a Creed, as men speak of Creeds, and particular points may be a Creed, though that article of the Church were not expressed, but presupposed, and proved independently, both of the Creed, and Scripture, in manner declared heretofore. And here Dr. Potter should remember his own doctrine, and the doctrine of most Protestants, that the Church cannot err in Fundamental Articles of Faith, and therefore, according to your manner of arguing, this short Creed I believe the Church to be infallible in all Fundamental points, would have been better, that is, more effectual to keep the believers of it from heresy and in the true Faith, than this Creed which now we know: and so, either you must forsake the Doctor, about the Church's infallibility in fundamentals, or he must reject your argument and both of you grant, that you prove nothing against Ch: Ma: but only contradict one another: You confess, that the Creed contains not Agenda; why do you not say? It had been better to refer us to the Church, then to set down in the Creed only Credenda, which alone are not sufficient to bring any man to heaven; and so make men think hay have all in the Creed, when the have scharsly half. Motrover, If you respect only infallibility, or being more effectual to keep men from heresy; in your grounds, neither the Articles of the Church, nor the other articles, as they are now in the Creed, could have so great commodity, and no danger (as you say, speaking of the Church's infallibility) as this one general article, believe the Scripture to be infallible; and therefore, either you must take this one article as the best Creed, (which no man will ever grant) or answer your own argument, by saying: To believe the Scripture, is too general an object, and that a Creed, or Catechism, must include some other particular objects; or some such answer you must give, which will be easily turned upon yourself. Thus your (N. 78. and 79.) which go upon your first supposition, that that Creed is the better that keeps the believer of it from heresy &c, remain confuted and the Syllogism which you make, proves a mere paralogism. For, that petite Creed, which you propose, would be so far from having greater commodities (in order to the intent of Creeds) than this other, that it could be no Creed at all, in that sense, in which hitherto the ancient Fathers, and all Divines have spoken of Creeds, and of summaries of Faith. If you have a mind to change the name, and meaning of Creeds, and to substitute some one proposition, indeed I know no better, in order to use and safety, than this The visible Church of Christ is infallible. For this being once believed, I may learn what is true Scripture, what the sense thereof, what points be necessary in all occasions; which commodity we cannot attain by Scripture alone, as hath been often said, 64. You say (N. 80.) That having compared the inference of Ch. ma. and Dr. Potter's together, you cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them, nor any show of reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some Body to deliver it. Much less why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary, should make the belief of a part of it unnecessary. As well for aught I understand, you might avouch this inference to be as good, as Dr. Potter's: The Apostles Creedcontaines all things necessary, therefore there is no need to believe in God. Neither does it follow so well, as Dr. Potter's Argument follows, That if the Apostles Creed contains all things necessary, that all other Creeds and Catechisms wherein are added divers 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 contain all points of belief that are simply necessary. These therefore are poor consequences but no more like Dr. Potters, than an apple is likean Oyster. 65. Answer; Dr. Potter argued, that if the Apostles, did not deliver in the Creed all necessary points, they might as well have given only that Article of the Church. Which manner of arguing Ch. Ma. retorts, and saith, we may rather infer thus: If the Apostles delivered in the Creed, all necessary points, what need we any Church to teach us? And consequently what need is there of the Atticle concerning the Church? What need we the Creed of Nice, Constantinople, etc. Superfluous are your Cathecismes, wherein besides the articles of the Creed, you have divers other particulars. These would be poor consequences, and so. is yours. Thus Ch. Ma.; who, as you see, doth not approve these consequences, but expressly saith, they are poor ones. Which consequences, while you also, labour to disprove, you do but take pains for your adversary, to your own cost. But at least you will say, there is no shadow of resemblance between them, and that of Dr. Potter's. Yes; there is this resemblance: That as the Doctor argues: all necessary points are not contained in the Creed, therefore, it had been as good, or better, to have no Article of the Creed, but that of the Church, lest that as he sayeth (Pag. 226.) in setting down others besides that, and yet not all, they may make us believe we have all, when we have not all: So, contrarily, Changed Ma: argues; That if all other necessary points be contained in the Creed, what need we the Church to teach us, or that Article of the Church? which deduction might be made good, by the Doctors fear, lest that if we have that Article of the Church, we may think that alone sufficient, (wherein he might be confirmed by the commodities which you say are implied in the point of the Church's infallibility) and so be careless, in seeking any other particular object, or article of Faith. Which argument is like to that of the Doctors, except only, that indeed it is much better than his, and may be made a kind of demonstration, by adding, that, in your grounds, the article of the Church is not fundamental, or necessary to salvation, and therefore whosoever believes all the articles of the Creed (if it be supposed to contain all necessary points of Faith) may be saved, though he believe not that of the Church, of which you say expressly in this your fourth Chapter (N. 34.45.) that it is not a fundamental article, and consequently, not necessary to salvation: yea, it is further inferred from hence, that D. Potter's argument is of no force; seeing it cannot be better to have one only unnecessary article of Faith, then to have divers fundamental articles (which no man denies the Creed to contain) and want that one, not necessary, or unfundamentall point. You say, that you cannot discover any show 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 yourself, who teach that the Creed contains all necessary points of Faith, and that the article, which doth concern the Church, is none of those necessary points: from whence it follow, that the perfection of the Creed, that is the belief of all necessary articles, excludes a necessity of believing that article of the Church. For it implies contradiction, that I should believe 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 perpetual visible Church, which you say (N. 34.) is not a fundamental article; and the same you teach in divers other places of your Book. You add, much less can I discover any show of reason, why the whole Creeds containing all things necessary should make the belief of a part of it unnecessary. As well, (for aught I under stand) you might avouch this inference to be as good as Dr. Potters: The Apostles Creed contains all things necessary, therefore their is no need to believe in God. But who makes any such general or causal inference? Because the whole Creed contains all things necessary, therefore the belief of a part of it is unnecessary: rather we must say the contrary; Because it contains divers necessary points, therefore the belief of divers of them is necessary. I hope you will not deny this to be a good consequence; the Creed contains all necessary articles, together with some not necessary; Therefore the belief of some part of it is not necessary. And I wonder you would parallel our belief 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 confirm the argument of Ch. Ma. who never said absolutely, that if the Apostles Creed contain all things necessary, all other Creeds, and Catechisms are superfluous, but expressly called it a poor consequence, and yet that it was as good as Potters, which must be to this effect: It is enough (upon the Doctors supposition, not in truth) or it is only necessary, to believe the article of the Church, Therefore it is superfluous to believe other articles contained in the Creed. 66. In your (N. 81.) you are pleased to spend words in vain. D. Potter says, As well, nay better, they might have given us no article but that, and sent us to the Church for all the rest. Ch. Ma. having first proved, this inference, to be of no force; by way of supererogation, grants the thing inferred, not absolutely, but thus far (which words you leave out, and yet they overthrew all that you say here) that, de facto, our B. Saviour hath sent us 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 us had delivered us the rCeed, holy Scripture, unwritten, Divine, Apostolical, Ecclesiastical Traditions. Thus Ch. Ma. hath granted you all that he pretended to grant, as might have been apparent, if you had not omitted his first words (Thus far) and not farther, nor so far, as you would needs make him to have pretended. 67. Your (N. 82.83.) have 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 therefore we needed not the Creed, Ch. Ma. saith truly, it is no good argument; The Creed contains not all things necessary, and that article of the Church, is in rigour sufficient; Therefore the Creed is not profitable: or if the Doctor meant, that the article of the Church were enough, because the Church afterward, would teach all things by Creeds, or Catechisms etc. that were but to leave the Creed, and afterward to come to it; and indeed to tell us, that the Church must do that, which had been done already: and therefore in what sense soever you take the Doctors 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 belief, you do indeed overthrow it, while you speak to Ch. Ma., in this manner: Supposing the Apostles had written ●hese Scriptures as they have written, wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered, and preached that doctrine which they did preach, and done all other things as they have done, besides the compossng their simbol: I say, if your doctrine weretrue, they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the Church of Christ, if they had never composed their simbol, which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple belief, and no distinctive mark as a Simbol should be between those that are true Christians, and those that are not so; but in steed thereof, had delivered this one proposition, which would have been certainly effectual for all the forsaid good intents and purposes, the Roman 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 us, that the scripture is infallible, and evident in all necessary points, de facto have done as much service to the Church, as you say they would have done, by that article, I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible. For this evidence of Scripture being supposed, you teach, that there is no need of a guide or an infallible Church, when the way is plain of itself. And if, notwithstanding this your doctrine, of the sufficiency of Scripture alone, the Creed is not unprofitable, and that the Apostles have done better service to the Church, by giving us both the Creed, and Scripture: So I say, that one article of the Church, together with the Creed, had been more profitable, and of greater service, than that Article alone; yea the Church, as I said, must have delivered some Creed, and it was a great service to us, that the Apostles had done it to her hand. If you deny this, you must deny the Creed, and Scripture, to be de facto more profitable, than 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 than the Scripture. If you say, the articles of the Creed being clearly, but diffusedly set down in the Scripture, (as Potter speaks) have been afterwards summed up and contracted into the Apostles Creed, which therefore is of great use: I reply, that by this answer, you teach us to confute your argument, by saying, that, as Scripture is too large for a Creed, or an abridgement, so this one article of the Church, is too short for a Creed, or abridgement of Faith, and must have been enlarged, by some Creed, Cathecisme, etc. And as Potter, and you, limited the promise of our Saviour, to the Church, that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it, to fundamental points, or to a sufficient, but not a certainly effectual assistance, or some other way; the same would you have done though he had specified the Roman Church. 78. Your last (N. 84.) contains nothing in effect, besides what you and Potter have said, and hath been confuted already. We deny not, but that the Creed, contains all fundamental points in the sense, which I have declared more than once, and which Catholic Writers intent, when they say it contains all fuch articles: and the Reader will receive further satisfaction by perusing the (N. 26.) of Changed▪ Ma., as it is delivered by himself; as also he will find that you have omitted some points of importance, which Ch. Ma. hath set down (N. 27.) as in particular: That the very council of Nice which (saith Whitg●ft in his defence (Pag. 3●0.) is of all wise and learned men reverenced, esteemed and embraced, next unto the Scriptures themselves) decreed that, to those that were chosen to the ministry unmarried, it was not lawful to take any wife afterward, is affirmed by Protestants. last; in answer to the direction, (N. 33.) you undo, all that Dr. Potter, and you have done, in labouring to prove, that the Creed contains, 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 unnecessary. For if all necessary things, of all sorts, whether of simple belief, or practice be confessed to be clearly contained in Scripture, what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed? CHAP: XIV. THE ANSWER TO HIS FIFTH CHAPTER ABOUT SCHISM. 1. OMitting to say any thing by way of preface, and introduction; your (N. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.) have been answered, particularly, and at large, in my Chapter 7. The cavils, which (N. 10.11.12.) you use in avoiding the Authorities of some Fathers, (which Ch: Ma: alleged N. 8. to prove, that it can never be Lawful to separate from the Church) do prove 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.) There is no just necessity to divide unity, will find, that those words must be universal and serve for the Major Proposition, to prove, that the Donatists could have no necessity, to divide themselves from the Church; of which division he sayeth, that it appears, non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis. And if S. Augustine's proposition be not universal, his argument, had been but Petitio princicipij, taking for granted, that which was in controversy, namely, whether the Donatists had just cause to departed from the Church. So that indeed, those words of S. Austin, There is no just necessity to divide unity, must suppsose, that the Church cannot err, nor that men can receive any spiritual hurt by her doctrine, and that she can neither do, nor approve ill. All which hath been declared heretofore, both for the matter itself, and for the meaning of S. Austin, in divers other say of his. But it seems you wanted better matter, when you tell us, of want of diligence in quoting the 62. Ch. of that book of S. Austin, 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 put amongst the Errata, so here you note, that which Ch. Ma. himself cited right (N. 21.) as every one may see. Neither is it any better than ridiculous for you to say, that the words of S. Austin, are not inferred out of any such premises, as Ch. Ma. pretends; seeing he neither pretends nor mentions any other premises, besides that which he in the immediately precedent Number had said, out of the Holy Fathers, that Schism was a grievous sin; and I beseech you, from whence can S. Austin infer, that there can be no just necessity, to divide unity, except from a supposition, that Schism is a grievous sin, or as he speaks here, non esse quicquam gravius Sacrilegio Schismatis. But it is a sign, you are sinking, when you are glad to take hold, of any thing, be it never so weak. 2. The same answer, serves for your evasion to the words of S. Irenaeus count, heraet. (Lib. 4. Cap. 6●.) They cannot make any so important reformation, as the ●ll of the Schism is pern●●ous which must suppose, that the Church cannot err, in matters of faith, whether they be great, or little, in their own nature; and therefore he saith expressly, God will judge all those who are out of truth; that is who are out of the Church. judicabit omnes eos quisunt extra veritatem, id est qui sunt extra Ecclesiam. And therefore 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 falls 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 Heretics, makes directly against yourself. Neither doth it import, that the controversy about keeping Easter, may seem to be, only concerning a circumstance of time, and not immediately and expressly, of a revealed Truth. For indeed, to say, it was necessary, to keep Easter as the Jews did, for the circumstance of time, was a formal pernicious heresy, no less, then to bring in a necessity of observing othr rites, of the Jewish Law: and so the words, which you allege out of Petavius, make nothing for you, against us. For this cause, the observation of Easter, at a certain time, might be tolerated, as some rites of the Jews 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 custom, of keeping Easter have been, after it was pretended to be kept as necessary. Of which point, and of the excommunication inflicted by holy Pope Victor, Ch. Ma. hath spoken sufficiently in his 2. part. 3. Your answer to the words of S. Denis of Alexandria, is evidently a mere 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 lawful to part from the Church: and if it were lawful to do so, it could not universally be a virtue, rather to endure all torments, and death itself, than consent to it. Who can deny, but that in common speech, to say, we ought rather to die, then do such a thing, signifies the absolute unlawfulness thereof? Which in our case appears more, by his comparing the dividing of the Church, to the offering sacrifice to Idols. Those Martyrs, saith he, being no less glorious, that expose themselves to hinder the dismembering of the Church, than those that suffer rather, than they will offer Sacrifice to Idols. In your (N. 13.) you vainly distinguish, between the deficiency of the visible Church, and of the Church's visibility, seeing visibility is essential to the Church: and I hope you will grant, that nothing can exist, without that, which is essential to it. 4. Your (N. 15.16.17.18.19.) make no less against S, Austin; D. Potter; and the most learned Protestants, then against Ch: Ma. All your objections are answered, by considering, that we do not affirm, the Church to be at all times a like conspicuous, glorious, and, as I may say, prosperous: but only, That she shall be always so known, that men desirous of their salvation, may be able to distinguish her, from all other congregations, and have recourse to her, for matters belonging to Religion, seeing in the ordinary course (for we speak not of extraordiry cases, or Miracles) we must learn of her. Fides ex auditu. And yourself (Pag. 149. N. 38.) say, I must learn 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 God's word, unless I be taught it. So then the Church is, though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith, yet a necessary introduction to it. How then do you (N. 17.) ask this Question? If some one Christian lived alone among Pagans in some country, remote from Christendom, shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved, because he cannot have recourse to any cong regation for the affairs of his soul? Seeing yourself tell us, that you must learn 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 have learned of the Church the Christian Religion; wherein being once instructed he may afterward, be saved, by an act of contrition, when he cannot actually receive any Sacrament; and so he is not saved without dependence on the Church, of which he first learned the Doctrine of Christ. Neither do I say, that every part, of the universal Church, must always 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 known to the whole world. Yea, every particular Church, is of itself, visible to the whole, that is, from all parts of the Church, it may receive writings, letters, messages, and messengers, though it be not needful, that actually it do so, and so be actually visible to the whole, as I said. 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 essential notes of the Church, as hath been declared heretofore. 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 real preaching) that makes nothing, to prove, that the universal true Church, can be invisible, which in the greatest persecutions, was visible, both to friends, and foes, and became more conspicuous, even by persecution itself. Glorious S. Austin, brings so many, and so clear texts of Scripture, for the Amplitude, and Perpetuity of the Church, against the Donatists, that you may blush, to speak so contemptibly of his Doctrine in this behalf, as you do (N. 16.) or to say, as you do (N. 20.) that it appears not by his words, that he denied not only the actual perishing, of the Church, but the possibility of it; seeing he urges the promises of God, and predictions of the Prophets, for the stability, and perpetuity of God's Church. 5. You say (N. 20.) All that S. Austin says is not true: and that you believe heat of disputation against the Donatists, transported him so far, as to urge against them more than was necessary, and perhaps more than was true. As concerning the last speech of S. Austin, I cannot but wonder very much, why he should think it absurd for any man to say, There are sheep which he knows not, but God knows: and no less at you, for obtruding this sentence upon us as pertinent proof of the Church's visibility. Answer: The words cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Augustine (De ovibus Cap. 1.) are these: Peradventure some one may say, there are other sheep 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. Austin are evidently true. For is he not too absurd in humane sense, that can imagine one to be a member of the Church, to which, visibility is essential, and yet not be visible to men, but known to God alone? 6. Ch. Ma. (Pag 165. N. 11.) saith: These men do not consider, that while they deny the perpetuity of a visible Church, they destroy their own present Church, according to the Argument which S. Austin (Lib. 3. de Baptismo cont. Donat. cap. 2.) urged against the Donatists in these words. If the Church were lost in Cyprians (we may say Gregory's) time, from whence did Donatus (Luther) appear? 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 have any Church, if she have ceased ever since those times (Lib. 3. cont. Parm.?) 7. To this authority of S. Austin, you answer (N. 21.) Neither do I see, how the trath of any present Church, depends upon the perpetual visioility, nay nor upon 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 repair that which is ruined; to reform that which was corrupted, or to revive that which was dead? Nay what reason is there, but that by ordivary means 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 far collapsed, and overrun with disorders, is yet in possibility of being reduced unto its Original state, so long as the Ancient Laws and Fundamental Constitutions are extant, and remain 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 speak, 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 appears by what we have proved in divers places. For if the Church be supposed to be fallible, we can have no absolute certainty, that Scriptures are the word of God, or preserved in their integrity: Neither would this suffice, seeing they do not contain evidently all points necessary to be believed; and though they did; we should be to seek for the true meaning of them: as also no man can be obliged to believe, nor can in prudence believe, any person whatsoever against the universal Church, and ordinary Governors, and Pastors thereof; and such Persons might expect to be entertained, with those pithy words of Tertullian (Lib. de prescript.) Qui estis vos? Vnde & quando venistis? ubi tamdiu latuist is? Which words are parallel to those of S Austin recited above. 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: seeing you suppose, that notwithstanding all disorder for practice, there remains still the same certain knowledge of the Laws, and means for the interpretation of them, which were before it was collapsed, and that the laws contain evidently, and perfectly all things necessary for the constitution of a commonwealth; all which we deny in order to Scripture, as hath been often showed. And so you see the reason, why the truth of the present Church, depends on the Perpetuity and Incorruption of God's Church for all ages; without which there could be no means to rectify, the present Church. 9 What you say (N. 22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.) either contains no difficulty, or hath been answered already, in my chapter of Schism: Only I must entreat the Reader, not to trust your summing up in your Number 24. the arguments of Ch. Ma., but to read them, in the Author himself. 10. All that you have (N. 37. and 38.) is answered out of Dr. Potter's own words (Pag. 76.) where speaking of the Church of Rome he saith; Her communion we forsake not, no more than the Body of Christ, whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member though corrupted: and this clears us from the imputation of Schism, whose property it is (witness 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 zealots among us have proceeded to heavier censures, their zeal may be excused, but their Charity and Wisdom can not be justified. Do not these words clearly declare, that one is not a Schismatic, if he separates from a Church in such manner, as he do not cut of from the hope of salvation the Church from which he separates; and that the Donatists, and Luciferians, were not Schismatics 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 Doctor, are necessary and sufficient, to incur the sin of Schism; a separation, and a condemnation of that community, from which that division is made. For both D. Potter and those zealots, agreed in a separation, and in the pretended just cause thereof (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 condemns some of Schism, and clears other from it, though they agree in all the rest; and so your example (that though one symptom of the plague be a fever, yet not every one that hath a fever hath the plague: because he may by reason, (as you speak) of the absense of other requisits not have the plague,) makes against yourself, by applying it; That as he who hath a fever with other requisits for a plague, must have the plague, so the cutting of from hope of salvation a Church, and separating from it, will make up a complete Schism; and then the Syllogism, will not be that, which you make, against all good Logic, but this: Whosoever divides himself from the Roman Church, and cuts it of from the hope of salvation is a Schismatic, but those hot Protestants of whom you speak, do all this: Therefore they are Schismatics. Yea, seeing Ch. Ma. (Pag. 190.191.) shows, that even D. Potter doth also cut us of from hope of salvation, without repentance, by his own rule, he makes himself guilty of formal Schism. 11. Your (N. 41.) is against Dr. Potter, who (Pag: 126.) teaches, that to limit the Church to the part of Donatus, was an error, in the nature and manner of it, heretical against that Article of the Creed, wherein we profess to believe the holy Catholic Church. And for that other Article Remission of sins, seeing by Holy Scripture we learn, that some are elect to eternal happiness, which they cannot attain without the remission of their sins, it follows, that it is an Article of Faith, not only that God will forgive the sins of all that repent, as you say it may be understood, but that de facto there is Repentance, Remission of sins, and salvation. But these are not Questions to be treated in this place: and by these examples it appears, to how little purpose you, and the Doctor will have all fundamental points of Faith, to be contained in the Creed, seeing you cannot agree, about the meaning of them, without which the words are but words. Your instance about the stars, and sun, which do not cease to be, although they be not always visible, is nothing to the purpose, unless you could prove, that perpetual visibility, is essential to the stars, or Sun, as it is to the true Church of Christ: and I might add, that they are always visible to some people, and not wholly invisible, as some Protestants dream, the Church to have been invisible, and withdrawn to the hearts of some particular godly men, during the space, of one thousand two hundred three score years, as Ch. Ma. shows (Pag: 161.) 12. Your (N. 42.43.) need no answer. You will find, that the authority of S. Cyprian, to which Ch. Ma. (N. 16. Pag: 161.) refers the Reader, is very pertinent, to prove, that it is unlawful, for those, that esteem themselves moderate Protestants, to communicate, with those other, who say, the Church perished; because these being formal Heretics (according to Dr. Potter) and so out of the Church, it is impossible for those other, to remain in the true Church, and yet communicate with them, who are out of the Church, according to the said 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 succeeds Fabianus by Lawful ordination, Novatianus is not in the Church. If then, the milder Protestant's, 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 Protestant's should come to be both within, and without the Church. You tell us, that the saying of S. Cyprian hath no more to do with our present business of proving it unlawful to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not always 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 applied against Ch: Ma. Your last words (That S. Cyprians words are by neither of the parts litigants esteemed any rule of Faith: and therefore the urging of them, and such like authorityes serves only to make books great, and Controversies endless) show what esteem you have of Antiquity, and the holy Fathers; how diffident you are of your cause, if their authority might prevail; and how unjustly you proceed, in alleging against us, the authority of Fathers, of whom you make so small, and so ill account, as to say, the urging of them, serves only, to make books great, and which is worse, controversies endless. 13. For answer to your (N. 45.) I must still entreat the Reader, to peruse (N. 17.) of Ch. Ma. and withal to remember, what I have proved heretofore, that it is impossible, to leave the external communion of the Church, and not to leave the Church; external communion being of the essence of the Church. And therefore your example, that a man may leave any fashion, or custom of a College, and yet still remain a member of the College, is not to the purpose, seeing a fashion, or custom of the College, may be merely accidental, to the constituting one a member thereof: or, if you suppose, any custom to be of the essence, and a Signum distinctivum of that College, from all other communities, than the example makes against you; for in that case, to leave that fashion, or custom were to leave the College. 14. Upon this error, that external communion, in profession of Faith, Liturgy, Sacraments &c: is not essential to the Church, is grounded all that you have (N. 47.) Neither is C. Ma. deceived, in not distinguishing between a local and moral forsaking any thing: But he saith, and hath proved, that external communion, being essential to the Church, it is impossible, that they can be of one Church, who are divided in that communion, but do forsake one another morally, and locally also, refusing to be present, at their public worship of God: nor doth he (C. Ma.) use any pretty Sophism, and very fit to persuade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any error they hold, or any vice they are subject to; Because forsooth they cannot forfake themselves, and vices and errors are things inherent in themselves. For (to turn your own Instance against yourself) if vices, and errors, were essential to a man, it were impossible, to forsake them, and not forsake one's self; so, union in external communion, being essential to the true Church, which is one, it is impossible, to forsake her external communion, and not forsake her; as it is impossible to forsake the company of Dr. Potter and keep company with the Provost of Queen's college (which is the example of Ch. Ma.) otherwise he should be with, and not be, with himself, according to the forsayd words of S. Cyprian, the Church being one, cannot be within, and without. It is not therefore Charity Maintained, who distinguishes not between a local and moral forsaking any thing, but it is you, who do not distinguish, between a real physical, and a moral forsaking of a man's self; as if one could not cease, to be a member of the Church, by heresy, or Schism, because he cannot cease to be physically himself. Thus your (N. 48.) is answered; and as you are pleased to repeat here again, In nova fert animus, so I, not to be too bold, with the Reader, by a vain repeating of the self same words, may well add, as fitly agreeing to you, the witty saying of Tertullian adver. valent. (Cap: 12.) Ovid metamorphoseis suas delevisset, si hodie majorem cognovisset. Certain it is that your changes of religion ought in reason, to be esteemed more strange, and I am sure, more unreasonable, than all the metamorphosies in Ovid. 15. Your (N. 49.50.51.52.53.54.55.56.) give 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 external communion can be both true parts of the Catholic Church, if indeed their division be culpable, and Schismatical. For in that case, the innocent part only, remains a true member of the Catholic Church; because if both remained united to the Catholic Church, they should also be united among themselves; Quae sunt unita uni tertio, sunt unita interse. And Potter (Pag: 76.) saith; Whosoever professeth himself to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole. How then do you say, it is certainly false that no two men or Churches, divided in external communion, can be both true parts of the Catholic Church? Seeing to be divided Schismatically, from any one member of the Church, induces necessarily a division from the whole, as the Doctor confesses. As for your (N. 55.) wherein you say to Charity Maintained; the reason of this consequence which you say is so clear, truly I cannot possibly discern. But the consequence, which Ch. Ma. makes (N. 17. Pag: 172.) of which you speak, seems so clear, that I believe every Body will see it, if his words be set down as they are delivered by him, and not abbreviated, and obscured by you. Thus he saith: I observe, that according to Dr. Potter the self same Church, which is the universal Church, remaining the universal true Church of Christ, may fall into errors, and corruptions; from whence it clearly follows, that it is impossible to leave the external communion of the Church so corrupted, and retain external communion with the Catholic Church; since the Church Catholic, and the Church so corrupted, is the self same one Church. What consequence can there be more clear? The Church Catholic, and the Church corrupted, is the same Church, therefore, it is impossible, to forsake the external communion of the Church corrupted, and not forsake, but retain external communion with the Church Catholic. 16. To your (N. 56,) I will only say, That you conceal the words of Ch. Ma., so to impugn them more freely. His words are: When Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Catholic Churches, holding contrary Doctrine, and divided in external communion; one of the which true Churches did triumph over all error and corruption in doctrine and practice, but the other was stained with both. For to find this diversity of churches cannot stand with reds of Histories, which are silent of any such matter. It is against Dr. Potter's own grounds, that the Church may err in points not fundamental. It contradicts the words in which he said (Pag: 155.) The Church may not hope to triumph over all sin and error, till she be in Heaven. It evacuateth the brag of Protestants, that Luther reform the whole Church. Of these last words you say, Let it be so, I see no harm will come of it. What indeed? Is it no harm, that it may be said with truth, that your Protestants are proved, bragging, false Liars, in saying Luther reform the whole Church? But, (to omit this) these words declare that Ch. Ma. speaks of two Churches, whereof one did triumph over all error, 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, whereof one did triumph over all sin and error; and yourself explicating the Doctor's words say: To triumph over error, 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, wherein you say, To suppose a visible Church before Luther, which did not err, is not to contradict this ground of D. Potter's, that the Church may err. Unless you will have us believe 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, unless you will pretend you cannot make better. But this whole objection, is grounded upon concealing the words of Ch. Ma., who spoke of a Church triumphing over all error, as we have seen by his express words: and therefore when in the very next consequent period, he mentions a Church free from error, it cannot be otherwise understood, then of such a freedom, as he spoke of immediately before, that is of a Church, (as indeed the true Church ought to be) free from all danger of falling, into any least error, against Faith. Besides; suppose he had spoken of a Church, which defacto did not err in any point fundamental, or not fundamental, from the Apostles time to Luther; it had been no ill argument, to infer, that she could not err; 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 have agreed in the same belief, concerning matters, not evident of themselves, but far exceeding the light of natural reason, and seeming contrary to it; and therefore, if they had not been effectually preserved from error, no doubt but some would have fallen into it: which is so true, that Dr. Potter saith (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 weakening the strength of History, and tradition serves only, to call in question all Religion, in your ground, who believe 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 〈◊〉) Look 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 Saviour's Parable, Matth: 31.) say, that the field he speaks of is the Church, but that he foretold, that there would be in the Church tares with choice corn; which is very true, seeing he expressly makes the parable of the kingdom of Heaven (which is the Church) saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is resembled to a man etc. and the amplitude of the word (world) doth not exclude the Church, for which, and her Pastors he gave that wholesome Document; Sinite utraque crescere, Let both grow up; and I pray, where but in the Church, can there be the wheat, which our Saviour would not have rooted out? And because your own guiltiness, moves you in this occasion to tax Catholics, because they punish obstinate Heretics; you should reflect, that the tares are not to be gathered, when there is danger, lest by so doing, the wheat may be rooted out; and therefore, a contrario sensu, if there be no such danger, yea that by sparing the cockle, the good corn, will suffer, the cockle is rather to be taken away, than the corn destroyed. In your (N. 58.) may be observed a strange kind of saying, that God is infinitely merciful and therefore will not damn men for mere errors, who desire to find the truth and cannot. Is it mercy not to damn men for that which is no fault? And for which to damn one were injustice, and therefore not to do it, is not mercy, but justice. 18. Your (N. 59.60.) have been answered at large, in the Chap: 7. about Schism. 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 have proved, even he who believes she erred, yet is supposed to believe that, notwithstanding that error, still she wants nothing necessary to salvation; and therefore the distinction of persons, whereof one believes she errs, and the other believes she does not err, cannot save this contradiction. 19 That which you say (N. 61.) is answered by these few lines. Almighty God hath promised to give his sufficient grace to avoid all deadly sin, and consequently all damnable error, as you confess every error against any revealed Truth to be, unless ignorance excuse it, which cannot happen, if, as you affirm, such an assistance is promised to us as shall lead us, if we be not wanting to it and ourselves, into all not only necessary but very proficable truth, and guard us from all, not only destructive, but also hurtful errors; because this assistance supposed, the Church, if she fall into error, must be wanting to herself, and her ignorance can not be invincible, but culpable, and damnable both in itself, and to her; and if her errors be damnable, she wants some thing necessary to salvation, that is, the true assent of Faith, contrary to that damnable error, and she hath something incompatible with salvation, namely, that damnable error; and so indeed that truth, which you call only profitable, becomes necessary, and that error which you suppose to be only hurtful, is destructive, if your Doctrine be ttue, that God gives sufficient Grace, to avoid all sorts of error, and to lead to all very profitable truths. And then further it follows, that you must recall your Doctrine, and say, that if the Church may fall into error not damnable to her, it must be in case it be invincible, and yet it cannot be invincible, if she have sufficient Assistance, to lead her into all, not only necessary, but profitable truth, and therefore you must deny, that she hath such an assistance, and we must conclude, that by not erring in any fundamental point, she performs her duty to God, and so can not be forsaken without Schism. For you do not deny the proposition of Ch: Ma: (N. 20.) that the external Communion of the Church, cannot be forsaken, as long as she performs the duty which she oweth to God. Besides, how do you not contradict yourself,, in saying, Who is there that can put her in sufficient caution, that these errors about profitable matters may not bring forth others of higher quality, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine by secret consequences the very Foundations of Religion and piety? For if the errors be such as you describe, they come to be concerning things, not only profitable, but necessary, as undermining the very foundations of Religion: and therefore to say she errs culpably in them, is to say that she errs damnably, and fundamentally; and you must say, she errs culpably, if she have assistance sufficient to avoid them. By this discourse, and other 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 parallel the security of private men from error, in fundamentals, to that of the universal Church. And (N. 68) you will not see the reason of a consequence, deduced by Ch. Ma. which had been very clear, if you had set down his words, which are these: (N. 22. P. 185.) Since it is not lawful to leave the communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners, because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation: and since according to your Assertion, no Church may hope to triumph over all sin and error (and I add what the Doctor saith (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 sin; so neither by reason of errors not fundamentall, because both sin and error 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 clear consequence? The Church cannot be forsaken for sins, because they cannot be avoided in this life, therefore, seeing errors, at least in not fundamentals, cannot be avoided 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 do evil to avoid evil, yet when a position is such, as evil cannot but follow of it, ex natura rei, it is a clear argument, that such a Position includes falsehood, and error. Now as Ch. Ma. proves (N. 24.) your grounds do, of their own nature, give scope to perpetual Schisms, and divisions: And then the consequence is clear, that they are false and erroneous. His words (which you by abbreviating make ineffectual) are: they (who separate themselves) will answet as you do prompt, that your Church may be forsaken, if she fall into errors, though they be not Fundamental; and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors: which two grounds being once laid; it will not be hard to infer, the consequence, that she may be forsaken. 21. All that (N. 74.75.76.77.) you utter with too much heat, is answered, by putting you in mind, that Ch. Ma. never affirms, that Protestants say, the cause of their separation, and their motive to it, was (absolutely and independently of any separation) precisely because they did not cut her of from hope of salvation (as you impose upon him) for which foolish reason even Catholics might be said to be schismatics, from their own Church, because they are sure she is not cut of from hope of salvation) but that, supposing their separation from us upon other causes (for example, pretended corruptions) they pretend to be excused from Schism, and say they did well to forsake her, because they do not hold, that she is cut of from hope of salvation. Which to be true, he (C: Ma:) shows out of Potter's words. And yourself (P. 284 N 75.) say to C: Ma: can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from Schism, by this reason and making this the reason of his separation. And whosoever reads Ch: Ma: [N. 27.] will find, that which I say to be true. For he expressly saith, that both they who do, and do 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 there could be no imaginable Schism) they do allege for their excuse, that they did it in a different manner, because the one part, of which we speak, conceived that, though they did separate, yet they should be excused from Schism, because they did not cut of, from hope of salvation, the Roman Church: and so, this was the motive, or reason, for which they judged, they might separate from her, without the sin of Schism, and consequently, they would not have done it, if they had not had this reason, or motive, and consideration, whereby to excuse themselves. Thus your examples of one saying to his Brother, I do well to leave you, because you are my Brother, or of a subject, saying to his Sovereign Lord, I do well to disobey you, because I acknowledge you to be my lawful Sovereign, are mere perversions of Ch. Ma. his words, who saith truly against Potter, that if one should part from his Brother upon 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 Sovereign, upon some motive, and then should think to justify his fact, by saying, he still acknowledges him, to be his lawful Sovereign, C: Ma: I say affirms, that such an excuse, may justly seem 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 Sovereign. 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 Pastors, with this only difference, that the one sort, saith, that she is cut of from the hope of Salvation, and the other says she is not, and pretend to be excused from Schism, because they say so, though they separate themselves from her, no less, than the other do. 22. To your (N. 78.79.) I answer, that when the Fathers, and Divines, teach, that schism is a division from that church, with which one agrees in matters of faith, they do not distinguish, between points fundamentall, and not fundamenntall, in order to the negative precept, of not disbelieving any point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, and so in fact, all points being fundamental, in this sense (as both you, and Potter are forced to confess more than once, though in other occasions you contradict it, as even in this place you make such a distinction, and upon it ground your objection) whosoever agree truly in all Fundamental points in this sense, agree in all points, of truths, revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed for such. If Protestants will feign to themselves, another kind of points, not fundamental, in order to the Negative precept of Faith, Charity Maintained is not obliged to side with them, but may and aught to say, that if Protestants pretend to agree with us, in fundamental Points, they must a part rei agree with us, in all Points, sufficiently proposed as divine Truths, and that agreement supposed, while they depart from our Communion, they becocome most formal Schismatiks, as Schism is distinguished from heresy. Thus your syllogism (which you pretend to resemble the argument of Ch: Ma) is answered. For when you say; He that obeys 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 fundamental 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 fundamental to the Faith of a Christian, as Potter confesses. By this also your (N. 79.) is answered. Neither do your (N. 80. and 81.) contain any difficulty, which is not answered by a mere denial. I wish the Reader for his own good, to read what you omit in the (N. 29.) of C: Ma: where he shows, that Luther was far enough from intending any reformation, with some other points, which you omit, or involve 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 have given a greater. C: Ma: said, that Luther, and his Associates, did wholly disagree in the particulars of their reformation; which was a sign, that the thing upon which their thoughts first pitched was not any particular Model or Idea Religiō, but a settled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome. This you not only grant, but prove, that it could not be otherwise, saying to Changed Ma. Certainly it is no great marvel that there 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 give the reason, in these remarkable words: the Declination from which (original purity of religion) some conceaving to have begun though secretly in the Apostles times the mystery of iniquity being then in work; and after their departure to have showed itself more openly: others again believing that the Church continued pure for some ages after the Apostles, and then declined: And consequently, some aiming at an exact conformity with the Apostolic times: others thinking, they should do 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 work of Reformation, only from Scripture; others from the writings of Fathers, and the decrees of Counsels of the first five Ages: certainly it is no great marvel that there 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 Catholic written Tradition: which Rule the reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow. I know not, whether the uncertainty, or misery, of Protestant religion, could have been described in more lively colours, than you have set it out. For if they be uncertain, from whence to begin their Reformation, and for that cause, you confess it was impossible for them not to disagree in the particulars thereof, it follows, that now they have no certainty, what Reformation is true, or whether a Reformation, and not rather a Deformation, or falsehood And indeed the different heads, even as you propose them, are so confused, that it is not easy to understand, what they mean: 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 doubtful, the conclusion can not be certain. You make your progenitors, to resemble perfectly, the Genethliaci and judicarij Astrologers, who not agreeing in their Principles, prove vain, and ridiculous in their predictions. You are like to a certain man, who not long a go, in a city, which I could name, apprehending himself in his climacterical year, could not be induced to eat, as despairing to pass that Critical time, till he was told by a witty Physician, that he must count his age, from the time of his conception, not of his nativity, as he had done, according to which rate, finding, as he thought, his fatal year to be past, was presently cured. Truly whosoever advisedly, and seriously, considers this Number of yours, can not but forsake Protestantisme, if he mean not to forsake his own soul. You endeavoured, to perswademen, that by the ordinary means, which are left us, a Church collapsed, may be restored to purity, which certainly you make impossible to be done, by the Doctrine you deliver here; , confessedly theridamas is no certainty, upon what Grounds, or by what settled directions, such a Reformation should proceed; nor from whence it should begin. It is also strange to hear you say; They did best that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholic written Tradition: Which Rule the Reformers of the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow. What? do you now tell us, that there be traditive interpretations of Scripture? A thing disclaimed by you, through your whole book, denying all other Traditions except that, whereby we accept Scripture, as the word of God, but not the interpretation of it, it being (as you say) evident of itself, and there 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? you tell us here, that some of them took their direction in this work of Reformation, only from Scripture; others from the Writings of the Fathers, and the Decrees of the Counsels, for the first five Ages: and that they did best, that followed Scripture interpreted by Catholic written Tradition? Hear, yourself expressly distinguish, those who took their direction only from Scripture, from others, who took it from the Writings of the Fathers, and the Decrees of Counsels etc. The truth is you undertook to defend Potter, and Protestants, only to have the occasion of venting Socinianism, and covertly overthrowing Protestantisme, and upon 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 error, against Divine Testimony, and the other in the right. I hope you will not say, that the difference between an Assent of Faith, and an error against Faith, is not between good and bad, but between good and better, as if error against Faith were good, but not so good, as Faith. Now those different capital Principles, of which you spoke, cannot choose but produce different, and opposite conclusions, and Doctrines of which one must be an error. 24. In your (N. 83.84.85.86.87.89.90.91.92.93.94.95.96.) you spend many words, with much unnecessary fervour against the answers which Ch. Ma. gives to two similitudes, which D. Potter brings to excuse Protestants from the guilt of Schism: which similitudes you allege in a cursiffe letter; but add words of importance, which the Doctor hath not. His words faithfully alleged by Changed Ma. (P. 194. N. 30) taken out of the Doctors (P: 81. 82.) are these: If a monastery should reform itself, and should reduce into practice, ancient good discipline, when others would not, in this case could it in reason be charged with Schism from others, or with Apostasy from its rule, and order? Or as in a Society of men universally injected with soxie disease, they that should free themselves from the common disease, could not be therefore said to separate from the Society: so neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accused for making a Schism from the Church, seeing all they did was to reform themselves. You say this argument is pressing, and unanswerable. But, Examples, and similitudes, are commonly said, rather to illustrate, then demonstrate, and are often more captious, then solid, and convincing. You have no reason to accuse Ch: Ma: for perverting them; for he first set down the very words of Potter, and then sets down the case, with application to our present purpose, never affirming, that the Doctor sets it down, in the manner, and in those words, but contrarily, showing, that it should be so set down; which appears by his express words (N. 31. Before you make your final resolution hear 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 down verbatim the Doctors case, but to signify, what he ought to have considered, and set down, and what de facto past in the division of Luther from the Church. And lastly, he shows, that the case, being set down, as it ought to have been, made against the Doctor, in favour of his adversary. That all this is true, will appear 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 God's Church; Dr. Potter (Pag; 76.) says: Whosoever professeth himself to forsake the communion of any one member of the Body of Christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole; and therefore her (the Roman Churches) communion we forsake not, no more than the Body of Christ: And that external communion, is essential, to make men members, of the same Church: which he (Ch. Ma.) shows (Pag: 155. N. 5) and I have proved heretofore. For, out of these two grounds, it follows, 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 external communion, which is essential 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 there is no divine command, to remain in that Monastery, or company of those infected persons, or else, that to leave their external communion, were not to leave them; and so, in one word, the parity must be absolutely denied; seeing it is supposed, that there is no divine precept for remaining in that Monastery, or Hospital of sick people, or else, that to remain in their company, were not essential to be a member of such communities; and therefore you say very irreligiously (N. 84.) That as it is possible to forsake other Societies, that is, their external communion, so also it may be Lawful to forsake the communion of the Church, for her pretended faults, and corruptions. But let us see, what you can object; and I must here again entreat the Reader, to read Ch: Ma. and not take his answers, not only at a second, but at an adversaries hand. For here you practise an art, first to divide the Reasons of Ch. Ma. and then to set upon every single one a part, whereas there is such a connexion between his reasons, that one receaves light, and strength from another. It seems you have a mind to cavil, when you would seem to make a difference, between one Monastery compared with other Monasteries of the same order, and one, or some few persons, compared with the one Monastery in which they live: Whereas you cannot but judge that there is the selfsame proportion, and that the reason, which may excuse, or accuse, in the one, may do the like, in the other, or rather indeed, it is but one, and the self same case, for as much as belongs to our present purpose. 26. You (N. 85.) in stead of answering the case as C. Ma. puts it, profess to alter it, and to put it not just as Ch. Ma. would have it. Well, even taking the case as you put it, I say, that if there were, as there 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 Lawful, to leave that community, as I declared heretofore, in case of minoris mali, and perplexity. But indeed Ch. Ma. speaks not of observances, the omitting whereof did import sin, but in express terms, of a case, wherein a Monastery did confessedly observe their substantial vows, and all principiall Statutes, or constitutions of the order, though withsome neglect of lesser Monastical Observances. Neither is the stream of Casuists against Ch. Ma. in this; nor S. Paul, whom you cite, while he says, that we may not do the least evil, that we may do the greatest good: in this case, the omission of those observances, would be so far from being evil, 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, universally 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 remain therein. 27. You cite (N. 87.) the words of Ch: Ma. disadvantagiously. He saith indeed, that those few that pretended a Reformation, were known to be led not with any spirit of Reformation, but by some other sinister intention; which is very true. And (N. 29.) he shown it out of Luther's own words, which you thought fit to dissemble: and the same may be demonstrated of your other primitive, 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 errors, for which they left her. For they may return to morrow, to their former opinions, as heresy is always instable, and also to us Catholics; because out of the true Church; they can have no certain rule of Faith, nor are assisted with plenty of grace, for exercising acts thereof, as experience teaches us, in the irreconciliable contentions of Protestants, and yourself say here (P: 277. N. 61.) The usual fecundity of errors is to bring forth others of a higher quality, such as are pernicious and pestilent, and undermine by secret consequences the very foundations of Religion and piety. It is pretty, to hear you say, (N. 88) that the Church is secured from fundamental errors, not by any absolute promise of divine assistance, but by the repugnance of any error fundamental to the essence and nature of a Church, as you may say, men are secured from being unreasonable creatures, or beasts, because if they were such, they could not be men. You know very well that when Charity Maintained said, (N. 31.) You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamental) he meant of an absolute promise of assistance, which Potter affirms the universal Church to have, for all fundamental points, and yet grants it not to any particular Person, or Church, and you had no reason to call that true saying of Ch: Ma: a manifest falsehood. Of Luther's opposing themselves to all, I have 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 chief learned Protestants are forced to confess the antiquity of our doctrine and practice; which you do not deny; but go about to specify some particular points, of which learned Protestants do not confess the antiquity; but indeed they are such, that any judicious Protestant, will wonder, that you did mention them in particular, confessing thereby, that for those which you do not express (and they are the chiefest differences betwixt Protestants and us) antiquity stands for us, against Protestants: though I must add withal, to make up the number, you are forced, to bring in some things, which are not matters of Faith with us, and some other points, which are even ridiculous. We deny, that any Catholic 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 Heretics. But you know Erasmus is no competent witness in our account. Your (Num. 72.) contains no new difficulty. 29. To your (N. 93.) In answer; that the Profession of true Faith, is essential to every member of the Church, as such, but Charity is not: and therefore every error against Faith, is incompatible with such a Denomination, but not sins against Charity. If the Church might err in any point of Faith, it is true, that, ex natura rei, and considering only that error, or only that one part of the supposition, in itself, her communion might be forsaken; and yet it is also true, that taking into consideration all sides, and comparing the greater Inconvenience, of leaving the communion of the Church, with a lesser of professing an error not Fundamental, it is necessary, to remain 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 error against Faith, is true per se loquendo, and not contrary to his other saying, that upon that impossible supposition, it were less evil; and therefore in case of perplexity, necessary not to forsake her: all which I explicated heretofore at large. For avoiding of which inextricable Labyrinths, and perplexities, and taking away all shadow of contradiction, we must believe, the Church to be infallible, and secured from all error against Faith. 30. All that you have (N. 94.) hath been answered heretofore, when we shown that to departed from the external communion of the Church, was to departed from the Church. Your (N. 97) contains no difficulty, except against yourself, who cannot avoid the Authority brought by Char. Main. out of S. Optatus, except by saying, his say 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: affirms, that the Primacy if Peter is confessed by learned Protestants to be of great antiquity, and for which the judgement of divers most ancient Fathers is reproved by them, as may be seen in Brereley (Tract: 1. Sect. 3. Subdivis. 10.) Which, to such as bear due respect, to the agreement, of so many ancient, learned, and holy Fathers, aught to prove 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 have concurred in opinion with us, that the Pope's Primacy is de Jure Divino, whereas he citys 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 upon 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 upon the sea of Rome, an universal power over them all, to admit Appeals against them, to reverse their decrees etc. unless they had believed, such a Power to have been granted by a Higher power. We see how zealously every one is bend, to preserve his own Right, and is more inclined, to deny what is due to an other, than to give up his own. And when, or where, did all Churches, vnitedly and jointly, offer up this universal supreme Authority, to the Bishop of Rome? 32. To the authority cited by Changed Ma: out of S. Cyprian (Epist. 55.) Heresies have sprung, and Schisms been bred from no other cause, than for that the Priest of God is not obeyed, nor one Priest and Judge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God; You answer that S. Cyprian spoke not of Cornelius but of Himself, and yet you confess (N. 91.) that Goulartius a learned Protestant, grants that it is meant of Cornelius, and Pamelius in his Annotations upon this Epistle of S. Cyprian brings divers Arguments to prove the same: Neither can it be denied but that in his Book de Vnitate Ecclesiae, he affirms Heresies to spring from not acknowledging one Head, S. Peter. upon whom our Saviour builded his Church: Super illum unum aedificat Ecclesiam suam. Primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia, & Cathedra una monstretur. Which is so manifest, that the Protestant Chroniclers, (cent. 3. col. 84. lin. 59) say, Passim dicit Cyprianus super Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam esse, ur Lib. 1. Epist: 3. (which is the Epistle cited by C. Ma. and of which we now speak) And Lib: 4. Epist: 9 etc. But although it were granted, that S. Cyprian in his Epist 55. did speak of a particular Church, it is clear, that for avoiding Schism 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, ut capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio. And even Dr. Covell a learned Protestant in his examination etc. sayeth; How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors in the world in peace and unity. For in all Societies Authority (which cannot be where all are equal) must procure unity and obedience. Otherwise the Church should be in a fare worse case, than the meanest commonwealth. To which purpose he alleges that Sentence, which we mentioned out of S. Hierom, ut capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio. You say; whether the words of S. Cyprian condemn Luther, is another Question. Answer; If those words condemn Luther of Schism, for withdrawing his Obedience from the Pope (which Ch: Ma: affirms, and you for the present do not deny) it evidently implies, that the Pope was Superior, to him, and all other Christians. 33. In your (N. 99.100.) you labour to elude these words of S. Optatus (alleged by C. Ma: in the same N. 36.) Thou canst not deny, but that thou knowest, that in the City of Rome, there was first an Episcopal chair placed for Peter, wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sat, whereof also he was called Cephas; in which one chair, unity was to be kept by all, lest the other Apostles might attribute to themselves, each one his particular chair; and that he should be a schismatic and a sinner, who against that one single Chair should erect an other. (lib: 2. cont: Parmen:) You tell us; That the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction, and that Optatus proves them Schismatics for so doing, upon this ground, of one Bishop in one Church. But whosoever reads Optatus, will clearly see, that he expressly speaks of the Catholic (not of a particular) Church, which he sayeth, hath quinque ornamenta or dotes, the first whereof is a chair, on which chair (of the Catholic and universal Church) he saith S. Peter first sat, whom he calls the Head of all the Apostles, whereof he was called Cephas; in which one Chair, unity was to be kept by all. Now I beseech you, is it not clear, 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 Catholic Church, by whose means unity was to be conserved, and that Schism, and Heresy are to be discovered, by opposition to that chair? which he calls singularem cathedram, and may well signify not only a single, or particular, or individual chair, but indeed singular, by reason of singular preeminence, and privilege above 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 usurpare contenditis, qui contra cathedram Petri, vestris presumptionibus & audacijs, sacrilegio militatis? To what purpose should he insist, upon these privileges of S. Peter, and his Chair, if he meant no more than what is common to all particular Churches? Or how doth he afterward prove, that they whom the Donatists opposed were ●in Ecclesia Sancta Catholica, per Cathedram Petri, quae nostra est? But why do I labour, to prove, that which our Adversaries, your Brethren, are forced to grant? For the Centurists (cent 4. col. 556. lin. 17.) allege Optatus calling Peter, Apostolorum caput, unde & Cephas appellatur. And indeed not only in the place alleged, but also (lib: 7.) he calls S. Peter caput Apostolorum, And Fulk (in his Retentive, 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 styles S. Peter head of the Apostles, and says, that from thence he was called Cephas; Perhaps he was abused into this opinion, by thinking Cephas derived from the greek word Kephale: whereas it is a Syriack word and signisies a stone. But what imports it upon what ground he called him head, seeing he called him so, and believed him to be such? Beside, that which is the stone, Rock, or Foundation, in a material Building, in a mystical Body is the Head, as the vulgar saying is, Homo est arbor inversa, The root is to a tree, as the Head is to a man; and therefore our Saviour said, I will build my Church upon this Rock, after he had said 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, Chief, or Head. 34. But now, give me leave, to say plainly, that it is intolerable in you, to impugn by Reasons, which you expressie only call probabilities, a matter delivered clearly in Scripture, testified by Antiquity, embraced by Nations, and corroborated by the great Plea of Possession, peaceful, and time out of mind; against all which, what wisdom is it to oppose, mere Topical Socinian conjectures? You say, First, That S. Peter should have authority over all the Apostles, and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them, and that they should show to him no sign of subjection, me thinks is as strange, as that a King of England for twenty fine years should do no Act of Regality, nor receive any one acknowledgement of it: 35. Answer 1. I would ask, how you can assure us, that S. Peter exercised no one act of authority over any one of the Apostles, unless first you suppose, not only that all points of Faith, but also all matters of fact, are registered in Scripture, which I hope you will not say, S. Luke in the Acts having set down but a few things, and of few? 2. If you believe Scripture, you cannot doubt, but that in divers occasions, S. Peter exercised Actions, declaring him to have an ordinary Charge, and Power proper to him. It was he, who spoke first in the Apostles Council in Jerusalem; who proposed the Election of S. Mathias; in warning Christians, that in the writings of S. Paul, there were things difficult to be understood, which in my opinion deserves to be noted, declaring that the charge 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 appears (Mark: 1. Luc: 8. & 9 Act: 2. & 5.) It was He who was wont to speak for the rest, and so S. Cyrill: upon those words, Joan: 6. Domine ad quem ibimus? sayeth: Per unum 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) to whom I refer the Reader. 3. The Apostles being dead, or dispersed, no wonder, if S. Peter, either had no occasion of exercising jurisdiction over them, or at least there was not occasion of writing it for posterity. Besides, all the Apostles having jurisdiction, 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 knowledge, nor will to correspond to the vocation of an Apostle; which consideration confutes and 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 he himself, and who he was assured, would make the best use 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 sayeth (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 unum 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 ut unitatem manifestaret, unam cathedram constituit, & unitatis ejusdem originem, ab uno incipientem sua authoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique & caeteti Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur. Primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia & cathedra una monstretur. Behold, how the Apostles had jurisdiction over the whole world, though in a different manner, from that according to which it was conferred upon S. Peter, to descend to his Successors. 36. Secondly. You object, As strange 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 virtue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have 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 confirm it by saying, the Kings of the Gentiles 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 express revelation, and command from our Saviour, were doubtful, whether they ought to preach to the Gentills. For if they might err 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 upon S. Perer, (and why do you not say against yourself, it is strange, that you so many ages after should know the Apostles did err in that matter.) Besides, Bellarmine de Romano Pontifice (Lib: 1. cap: 28.) demonstrates, both by testimonies 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 said, to have been ignorant of his own authority, which our Saviour had promised (Matth: 16.) and actually conferred (Joan: 21.) Yea perhaps the Apostles did propose to themselves, some temporal kind of glory, or kingdom, as the mother of S. James and S. John did, when she petitioned our Saviour, that one of her sons might sit at the right hand, the other at the left, in his Kingdom, and did not think, of being Head of the spiritual Kingdom of Christ's Militant Church. According to which consideration, it is no wonder, If our Saviour should not bring them out of their error, by telling them S. Peter was the man (seeing indeed he was no such man, in order to a temporal Kingdom) but rather confirmed it by saying, the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them, but it should not be so among them. Which sacred advice, had been also good, and necessary, though their contention had been, about their preeminence in the Church, which to seek ambitiously, is evil, though the thing, to which they pretend, be good. And seeing our Saviour was afterward to commit the charge, of the whole Church, to S. Peter in express terms, by a triple injunction of Pasce oves meas, Feed my sheep, (Joan: 21.) his divine wisdom thought fit (Matth: 18.) to give them that holy advice of humility; it being time enough, for them, to know, and reflect, that S. Peter was their Head, by that express future declaration, of our Saviour (Joan: 21.) 38. Thirdly. You would prove that S. Peter was not Head of the rest, because the Scripture saith, God hath appointed first Apostles, secondly Prophets, but saith not, God hath appointed First Peter, than the rest of the Apostles; which, to speak truth is a childish reason: it being clear, that the Scripture, in that place, doth not compare the Apostles among themselves, but with other degrees in the Church, as Prophets, Doctors etc. Otherwise, you might prove, 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 do not express the authority of one Magistrate, above 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 fare forget S. Peter and himself, as that mentioning him often, he should do it without any title of Honour. But I beseech you, can you believe, that S. Paul would say of himself, that he was not inferior 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 been a persecutor of Christians; and will you needs understand him to say, that in such respects, he was not inferior to the other Apostles, who were innocent of those things? He was an Apostle, as the others were, and that is all, you can understand 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 give any title to S. James, though he were Bishop of Jerusalem, which surely deserves some honour, if the simplicity, of those blessed times, had been accustomed to testify honour by titles. Yourself say here, S. Peter might be head of the Apostles, that is first in order, and honour among them, and not have supreme Authority over them; and Protestants easily grant that he had that Privilege of being first, in order, and honour; how then will your answer your own objection, that it was a wonder S. Paul should mention him, without any title of honour, seeing particular honour was due to him, even by our Saviour's command? For, from what other cause could it proceed? But shall I disclose to you a mystery, on which it seems you do not reflect? Our Saviour, whose words are operative, and deeds; by calling S. Peter, Cephas, or a Rock, had also made him such, and said Tues Petrus, Thou art a Rock, and upon 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 sayeth, of the title of Martyr (De Uirginibus Lib. 1.) Quot homines tot praecones, qui Martyrem praedidicant, dum loquuntnr. To name one a martyr, is a title of honour; and so it is to name Peter, for the foresaied Reason. 40. You conclude; Though we should grant against all these probabilities, and many more (fooleries, say I, not probabilities) that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles, not in our, but your sense, and that S. Peter indeed was so; yet still you are very fare from showing, that in the judgement 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 universal? Especially seeing 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 abvilding 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 do) that S. Peter by our Saviour's 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 say, little use thereof, seeing all the Apostles had Jurisdiction over all Christians, and Power to preach the Gospel, through the whole world; and so the necessity of such universal Power in S. Peter, must have 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 universal Power of S. Peter, to remain in his Successors, appears by his words, which I have pondered above; as also because he speaks of the Sea, or Chair of Rome, as of the Rule, whereby to judge of heresies, and Schisms, not only for the time of S. Peter, but for ever; and therefore he sets down a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome only, and saith: Cathedra unica quae est prima de dotibus, sedit prior Petrus: cui successit Linus, Lino successit Clemens, Clementi Anacletus &c: and so goes on till his own aim. And I would gladly know, by what text of Scripture you can prove that the Power of S. Peter over the whole Church, was so particular, and personal, to him, that it ceased with his person? Will you have us measure matters of Faith, with your congruities, or incongruities? With your Socinian, topical, humane vain, discourses? What mean you by these words as sure he the Bishop of Rome did even while S: Peter was living? I will not examine here, whether, or in what manner Linus, and Cletus were Bishops of Rome, before S. Peter's death (whereof may be seen Baronius Anno 69. who sayeth, they were not Romanae sedis episcopi, but only Coadjutores) I beseech you remember, what you said (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 live; therefore he could not be his successor, in that universal power, after S. Peter's death. Neither do you so much as offer to prove, 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, seeing 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 give it the right name a nothing, or a mere equivocation in the Metaphor of a foundation; whereas a Foundation in our case signifies a Head, or chief, 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 them wrote) and I hope you will not say, it is incongruous, that Preachers, and Teachers should have Successors. Was not Judas an Apostle, and was not S. Mathias chosen, not only after him, but expressly for him, or in his place, or to succeed him? For so S. Peter (Act: 1.) applies that place of Scripture, Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter: and the prayer of the Christians was, ostend quem elegeris ex his duobus unum accipere locum ministerij hujus, & Apostolatus, de quo praevaricatus est Judas. But what, if your very ground, or foundation (That in building it is incongruous, that foundations should succeed foundations) be false, as certainly it is? For, if you suppose the first foundation to fail, or be taken away, may an other, be substituted, and succeed it? The Apostles were Foundations, but being mortal, they failed, and needed successors to supply their absence, and so your similitude returns directly upon 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, seeing you may say, in building it is incongruous that a foundation should lay a foundation? Will you have it lay itself? Why do you not also say, that as the foundation, is under the building; so the Apostles, and all Pastors, Prelates, and Superiors, are inferior to the rest of the Church? It seems though the Scripture should be understood, (as indeed it ought) that Christ intended, that S. Peter's successors should have jurisdiction, over the whole Church, you will control God himself, and say, It is incongruous that foundation should succeed foundation. You say else where, untruly, that Ch. Ma. trifles, about the word foundation, which you confess to be metaphorical, and ambiguous, and yet here you ground your whole Argument, upon that metaphor, ill applied; as, (beside what hath been said) 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 have more than one firm and perfect foundation, as certainly the Apostles were? But I spend too much time in confuting such toys, as these. 43. Your (N. 101.102.) have been answered already. The Donatists for the cause of their separation pretended, not only, that the men from whom they separared, were defiled with the contagion of the Traditors (as you say) but also that they erred in Faith, in believing that Baptism, might be conferred by Heretics; to omit other things. Your calumny about a picture hath been confuted heretofore Your (N. 104.) contains no difficulty, which may not be answered by former grounds. 44. To your (N. 105.) I answer, that seeing Potter accounts the errors of the Roman Church to be damnable, to such, as are not excused by Ignorance, Ch. Ma. had reason to say, the Doctor condemns all learned Catholics, 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 understanding of any one, who considers what he says: After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental, or damnable; and yet I judge that according to true reason, it is damnable to hold them. For, according to true reason, one is to judge of things, as indeed they are in themselves; and therefore, if in reason, I judge them not to be fundamental in themselves, I must in reason conceive, that they are notfundamentall, being held by me; neither doth there in this case intervene any lie, seeing 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 errors are in themselves not damnable, and yet it is damnable for me (who know them to be errors) to hold and confess them, are absolutely inconsistent? For it is impossible, that any man can hold that which he knows to be an error; because even by knowing it to be an error, he holds it not, but dissents from it. He sayeth only, that it cannot be damnable, to hold an error not damnable (which is very true) but sayeth not that one can hold an error, which he knows to be an error. 45. You make Ch. Ma. speak in this ridiculous manner to Protestants; If you erred in thinking that our Church holds errors, this error or erroneous conscience might be rectified and deposed, by judging those errors not damnable; and than you triumph, and spend many words in proving the very same thing, which Ch. Ma. never denied, but expressly affirmed; namely, that the errors of the Roman Church (upon a falls supposition that she had any) were not damnable. These be his words in the said (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 errors, there is no other remedy, but that you must rectify your erring conscience, by your other judgement, that her errors are not fundamental. nor damnable. And this is no more charity, than you daily afford to such other Protestants, as you term brethren, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors (unless you will hold that of contradictory propositions both may be true) and yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their communion, because you hold their errors not to be fundamental. Is this to say; If you erred in thinking that your Church holds errors, this error might be rectified, by judging these errors not damnable? Is it not directly the contrary, and supposes errors, though they be not damnable? Or do you think, that Ch. Ma. holds Protestants not to be in error? All that Ch. Ma. says, is, That if you err, in judging you cannot be saved, in the Roman Church, by reason of her errors, you must rectify your conscience, by judging the errors, not to be fundamental, or damnable, and therefore not excluding salvation. Is this good dealing in you? And why do you say (N. 106.) A fifth falsehood it is that we daily do this favour for Protestants, you must mean (if you speak consequently) to judge they have no errors, because we judge they have none damnable? Changed Ma: said most expressly, that you do the favour to other Protestants, whom you cannot deny to be in some errors, not to judge it damnable to live in their communion, because you hold their errors not to be fundamental. Once again I must ask, whether this be conscionable dealing? 46. You are too resolute, in this (N. 106.) to impugn the saying of Ch: Ma: That according to the Doctrine of all Divines, there is great difference betwixt a speculative persuasion; and a practical dictamen of conscience. And I fear, you do not well understand, this true Doctrine, when you say; These are but divers words signifying the same thing; neither is such a persuasion wholly speculative, but tending to practise: nor such a dictamen wholly practical, but grounded upon speculation. For, you should say the contrary, that a persuasion purely speculative, is so far from tending to practice, that oftentimes, it is joined with this judgement; I cannot frame my practice, according to this speculation; and consequently my practice, can not be grounded upon such a speculation, as Catholic Divines do learnedly explicate, particularly, in the matter and form of Sacraments. But this is not a place, to handle this matter at large; it being sufficient to have said, that a speculation, taken alone, and abstracting from all other considerations, of all sides, oftentimes would prove pernicious, if it were applied to practice. You falsify Ch: Ma: as if he did affirm, that Protestants did only conceive in speculation, that the Church of Rome erred in some Doctrines, and had not also a practical dictamen, that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors. For, Changed Ma: saith not, that Protestants did only conceive in speculation & c.? And had not also a practical dictamen etc. but his words are: Although they had in speculation conceived, the vissble Church to err in some Doctrines of themselves not damnable; yet with that speculative judgement, they might, and aught, to have entertained this practical dictamen, that for points not suhstantiall to Faith, they neither were bound, nor lawfully could, break the bond of Charity, by breaking unity in God's Church. You see Ch: Ma: declares not, what dictamen Protestant's had, but what they might, and aught, to have had, which are as different things, as to say, one is an honest man, and might, and aught to be such an one. Ch: Ma: says not, that Dr. Potter teaches, in express words, that Luther was obliged to forsake the Church, for an unnecessary light, but that it follows, upon his assertion that he was bound to forsake her external communion, for poinrs not necessary to salvation. 47. In your (N. 107.) your example, that Euclid was not infallible, yet was he certain enough, that twice two are four, is not to the purpose, 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 do? 48. Ch: Ma: saith (N. 41.) Since in cases of uncertaintyes we are not to leave our Superior, nor cast of his obedience, or publicly oppose his decrees, your Reformers, might easily have found a safe way, to satisfy their zealous conscience, without a public breach: especially, if with their uncertainty, we call to mind the peaceable possession, and prescription, which by the confession of your own brethren, the Church, and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy. To this you answer, by abbreviating the words of Ch: Ma: thus; Your Church was in peaceable possession (you must mean 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 itself, and in nature of Possessors, (if we may speak improperly) rather then the thing possessed, with whom no man hath Reason to be offended, if they think fit to quit their own possession. But by what commission, or warrant, do you say to Ch: Ma: (you must mean of her Doctrine and the Professors of it) as if his words must needs be so restrained? Whereas the Church of Rome was in possession of Right, not to be 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 laws, Accepting appeals gathering Counsels etc. 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 fraud, Schism, Heresy, or violence, without offence to God, and man: as you will not deny, all lawful Communities, to have Right, that their subjects, should not withdraw, and divide themselves, from such a mystical 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 quasi possessio, the having any thing; as we are said, to have hands, feet, life etc. You say, the Professors of the Doctrine were in nature of Possessors (if we may speak improperly) rather then the thing possessed, with whom no man hath Reason to be offended, if they think fit to quit their own 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 virtue, or honesty, because he is supposed to possess them, or for a man, to deprive himself, of some member of his body, or even of life itself. 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 fraud and held by violence, are most injurious to Truth, to God's Church, and to God himself; as if our Saviour's promise, of a stable Church, should be verified, only by fraud and violence, seeing as I have often said, there was no visible Church upon earth, except the Roman, and those who agreed with her against the Doctrines which Luther did broach, as Ch: Ma: shows here (Pag 173.) and you do not deny (Pag: 274. N. 56.) where I observe by the way, that you say, I know not who they be that say Luther reform the whole Church; whereas Ch: Ma: citys divers Protestants that say so. 49. In your (N. 108.) There is nothing, but a perpetual 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 shows your charity to us, and zeal to add affliction upon the afflicted, if it had been in your power, and which you would have wished unwritten, if you were now a live. You say our rule out of Uincentius Lyrinensis advers: Hear;: Cap: 27. (Indeed it is a matter of great moment, and both most profitable to be learned, and necessary to be remembered, and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heaps of examples, that almost all Catholics may know, that they ought to receive the Doctors with the Church, and not forsake the Faith of the Church with the Doctors) is to no purpose against them, that followed Luther, seeing they pretend, and are ready to justify, that they forsook not with the Doctors the Faith, but only the corruption of the Church. But I pray, do you not teach, and proclaim, and thereby pretend to excuse your Schism, 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 Potter's words in the (pag: 209. N. 42.) you will find among the Errata, that Ch: Ma: only asks what the Doctor means. You do not well to explicate Hooker about external obedience against one's internal judgement, by paying money upon the judges sentence, which is a thing not evil of itself; but in matters of Faith, to yield external obedience against his internal belief. is pierce loquendo, evil. Your (N. 110.) about the words of Hooker, hath been answered in all those places, where I have showed, that Protestants, can have no certainty out of Scripture against Catholics, (as appears by the agreement of many of them with us) and therefore, (according to the principles of Hooker) Luther and his followers, were bound to obey the Pastors of that universal Church, which he found, before his revolt: and so you have no reason to accuse Brereley, or Ch: Ma: of any ill dealing in alleging Hooker as they do, who I do not wonder if sometime he speak inconsequently, seeing all Protestants are forced to do so in this matter. And heretofore, I have proved at large, out of the grounds which Hooker lays, that Protestants cannot be excused from Schism. You know your (N. 111.) is answered by a mere denial, of that which you affirm, without any proof. 50. You say (N. 112.) that Ch. Ma. (N. 43.) hath some objections against Luther's Person but none against his cause. But the Reader will find, the contrary to be true, That they concern his cause, in so high a degree, as no man, desirous to embrace the truth, and save his solve, or hath the fear of God, can believe, that Luther was a man sent to reform the world by preaching the true doctrine. I beseech the Reader to peruse that whole (N. 43.) of Ch. Ma. yet, I cannot for bear to set down these words of Luther (Tom. 2. Germ. Fol. 9 and Tom. 2. Witt. Anno. 1562. de abrog. Missa private. Fol. 244.) How often did my trembling hart beat with in me, and reprehending me object against me that most strong Argument. Art thou only wise? Do so many worlds err? 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 upon the so great matters? What if thou being but one, offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all, to err, why may be not permit the to err? to This belong those arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Counsels, and Customs, the multitudes and greatness of wise men; whom do not these Mountains of Arguments, these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow? And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soul, that he often wished, and desired, that he had (Colloq. Menfal, Fol. 158.) never begun this business; wishing yet further that his writings were burned and buried in eternal oblivion, Praef. in Tom: German. Jen. Your glancing at the lives of some Popes, makes only against yourself, considering that God did not use these men to begin a new pretended Reformation as Luther did, but they continued in that Sea, and Place, which had been established by our Saviour; and therefore the bad lives of some Popes, which had been enough to overthrow that Sea, if it were not settled most immovably by the absolute Divine promise, thou art Peter &c: and the Gates of hell shall not prevail etc. yield us 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, contain nothing but calumny, falsehood, and bitterness, and show with what spirit you were possessed. In your (N. 112. it should be 113.) you grant all that Ch. Ma. endeavoured to prove; and I have showed that in this grant, you contradict yourself. You say that in a Work which C. Ma. professeth to have written merely against Protestants, all that might have been spared which (N. 45.) he wrote against them that flatter themselves with a conceit, that they are not guilty of Schism, because they were not the first authors thereof. But by your leave, seeing those men keep themselves within the Communion of the Protestants, Charity Maintained 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 formal sin of Schism, which consists in forsaking the external Communion of Catholics with whom such men pretend to agree, in belief. Besides, perhaps they are not Catholics so far, as to believe, they are obliged to forsake the external communion of Protestants, and return to us; which if they believe not, they are not Catholics, in all points even of Faith, which teacheth us, that it is Schismatical, and damnable to be divided, from the external 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 Catholics, and Protestants. CHAP: XV. THE ANSWER TO HIS SIXTH CHAPTER ABOUT HERESY. 1. THe nearer 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 remains. 2. Charity Maintained (Chap. 6. N. 1.) hath these words: Almighty God having ordained Man, to a supernatural End, of Beatitude, by supernatural means, it was requisite, that his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and means, by a supernatural knowledge. This saying you approve (N. 2.) if Ch. Ma. mean by knowledge, an apprehension, or belief. But if he take the word properly and exactly, Faith is not knowledge, no more than three is four, but eminently contained in it, so that he that knows, believes, and something more, but he that believes many times does not know, nay if he doth barely, and merely believe, he doth never know. 3. Answer; accordingly to the right method, and order of doctrine, Ch. Ma. takes knowledge in general, as an act of the understanding, or Congnoscitive, and knowing Power of our soul, which must be knowledge, as it is distinguished from an act of the Will; and so in that Axiom of Philosophers, and Divines, Nihil volitnm, quod non cognitum, nothing is willed or desired, which is not known, knowledge is taken in general, for an act of the understanding, or cognoscitive Power without distinguishing between acts: evident, obscure, probable contain distinct, or confused. And if this be a true, and proper acception, of knowledge, taken in general, certainly in the same sense, it must be true in the particular species of knowledge, as all generical natures, are properly, found in every species, and so we say, of knowledge, 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 therefore necessary for Ch. Ma. while he spoke in general, and abstracted from evident, or obscure assents, to speak as he did: but then descending to particular species, he distinguishes faith, which must be obscure, from evident knowledge, but not absolutely from knowledge; and therefore you cite him amiss, when you affirm, that He requires that the object of Faith must be both naturally and supernaturally unknown, whereas he sayeth, it should be void even of supernatural evidence (which is not all one as to say, it must be void of supernatural knowledge) and when he said, our assent to divine truths must be unknowing (for so it should have been written, and not unknowen, which belongs to the object, not to the act of assent) he explicated it, or inevident by humane discourse. So that here is no retractation, of what he said of knowledge in general; but whereas you would prove a retractation by his words, Faith differs from science in regard of the objects obscurity, though I find not these formal words in Ch. Ma. yet I must say they prove not your purpose. For knowledge, being a Genus to Science, it doth not follow, Faith differs from Science, therefore it differs from, (or is not) knowledge; but contrarily, science being aknowledg, it cannot be distinguished from Faith by knowledge taken in general (seeing Faith is also a knowledge 〈…〉 Difference u.g. by being an evident knowledge, and ther●●● to clear all, when Ch. M. (N. 3.) teaches that Faith liffers fro Sea in the adds, natural sciences, to declare the evidence of such knowledge. For Theolegy, in the opinion of divers, is a science, though it hath not the evidence which natural sciences have, in regard, that one premisse at least must be an Act of Faith, and obscure. All which considered; you show too much confidence (some would say ignotance) in saying so resolutely as you do, to Ch. Ma. That science and knowledge properly taken are Synonimous terms, I think is a thing so plain, that you will not require any proof of it. For it is clear, that knowledge, is Genus to science, taken properly and strictly, and therefore they cannot be synonimous terms. Nay, though knowledge were taken for one species of knowledge, not as it is genus to different species, but as it is determined to signify an evident knowledge, yet it is not Synonimous with science taken properly, as Philosophers speak of it, not that 〈◊〉, for knowledge produced by demonstration, but it is of a larger compass, and comprehends all evident assents, and among the rest, the most general Principles of nature, as also the immediate Principles and premises of science itself. I mean of a demonstrative conclusion. As, for the signification of the word, knowledge, in our English phrase, it depends on the circumstances, in which it is used, whether, or no, it be, termined to an evident knowledge, or may also signify any assent, 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 approve his saying, by your speculation, that he knows nothing of Christ, or Christianity, because he believes it, and belief or Faith is not knowledge, as you speak? But if an other, to show the fervour of his Faith, should say, I do rather know, than believe, the truth of Christian Religion, he would be understood to take knowledge 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 have 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 glass; And yet seeing seems more to signify evidence, and to be opposite to believing, then only knowing. And (Joan: 14.9.) the English Protestant's Bible hath: have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip: and Beza in Latin, Non cognovisti me? And, (Job. 19.25.) your English Bible also hath; I know that my redeemer liveth. Innumerable other Texts, may be seen, in the Concordance of the bible, to this purpose, wherein knowledge is applied to objects of Faith. And S. Austin, (Lib. 1. de Doctr. Christ.) sayeth: non verendum dicere, nos scire, quae idoneis testibus novimus. But I may justly be thought to have said too much, in this Question, which may seem, 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 (knowledge) from which I now pass to the Matter. 4. You affirm, the saying of Ch. Ma. to be good, if he mean by knowledge, 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 understanding, distinct from the second, which is Judgement, or affirmation, or negation, and the third which is discourse; For, Faith is an assent or Judgement, that a thing is, or is not, which apprehension, is not, nay (to use your own expression) if he doth barely and merely apprehend, he doth never affirm, or deny; and in our case one may apprehend an object revealed, without Judging it to be true, or falls. A learned Heretic, or infidel, 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 take apprehension in general, as it abstracts from, and is common to the three particular species, or acts of the understanding, apprehension, judgement, and discourse, as Ch. Ma. does, when he says man's understanding must be enabled to apprehend that End, and Means by a supernatural knowledge, you do not distinguish it, from knowledge in general, or as it is common to all the particular species of acts in the understanding, evident, obscure; certain, probable, etc. and then you fall into that very thing, which you object against your adversary, that Faith is knowledge, taking knowledge, in general, as I explicated above. Yet all this, is nothing to the Philosophy, which you deliver in these words. Faith is not knowledge, no more than three is four, but eminently contained in it. But if you consider well, you will find, that three taken materially is contained formally in four, 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 exclusive one of another: and therefore your inference so that, he that knows, believes, and something more, but he that believes many times does not know cannot be good, taking knowledge (as you do, and upon which acception you ground your objection) for an evident knowledge, as if an evident assent did necessarily and universally include belief, that is an obscure, or inevident assent, either formally, as is manifest it doth not, or eminently, seeing an humane natural knowledge, though it be evident, is not more perfect than an inevident, certain, and supernatural 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 knowledge of a thing absolutely unknownen, is a plain implicancy, but you say so to no purpose, since Ch. Ma. never said, that Faith is knowledge, as knowledge is taken for any particular species of knowledge which is evident. But in the mean time look, how you can reconcile your own words, he that knows believes, and something more, whereof I have spoken already. Finally; Faith must be an evident knowledge, in your opinion, who hold it to be an evident conclusion, clearly deduced from evident premises, and so you impugn yourself, not your adversary. Your (N. 3.4.5.) have been answered already. Only I observe that, Hooker cited in your margin, for any thing that can be gathered by his words, understands no more, than that Faith is not so absolutely certain as knowledge, speaking of certainty joined with evidence wherein all men cannot but agree; whereas the certainty, of Faith, is of a different kind of certainty derived from the Divive Testimony, and special motion of the Holy Ghost, and such as doth not necessitate us 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 mere 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 believe to be infallible, by the same means, whereby the Apostles proved themselves to be infallible, as I shown (Chap 5.) Thus the first contradiction, which you impute to C. Ma. is of no force; as also the second, which goes upon a very falls, and injurious assertion that Charit: Ma: professes to have no assurance, but that Protestants dying Protestant's may possibly die with Contrition, and be saved, whereof I treated (Chap: 8.) 6. Your (N. 7.) gives us a strange 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 themselves, are neither evident, nor obscure, but by acts of ours, and from them, receive an extrinsecall denomination, of evident, obscure, certain, or probable: Otherwise the same object should be, in itself, at the same time, obscure, evident, certain, probable, doubtful, confused, distinct, perfect, imperfect, as at the same time, 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 believe, unless 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 blue are, and therefore our sight is not green or blue (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 green, ther that the object u.g. God himself, is obscure, probable, uncertain, confused, imperfect, because he may be known by such different acts. And this your example is retorted against yourself. For as the same object, without any alteration in itself, may beseen clearly, and dimly by different acts of our Eye, which makes it clear that the more or less cleareness is in the act of seeing, not in the thing seen; so we must say of our understanding, which is the Eye of our soul, that evidence, probability etc. are in the Acts of that Eye, and not in the objects which are understood. Whereby it appears, that you had no reason to please yourself so much in this ignorance of yours as to vpbraied Ch. Ma. and say: In other places I answer your words, but here I must answer your meaning. The word unknown, as I noted above, which you cite out of Ch. Ma. should have been put to the Errata, and corrected unknowing, as it appears by the word with which he joins 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 been answered at large 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 essential to it, and part of the definition of it, in that Questionless you were mistaken. Answer; C. Ma. says not that Prudence is essential to Faith, and part of the definition of it nor in the definition which he gives (N. 8.) prudence is so much as mentioned. Yet for the thing itself, seeing I have proved in the Introduction, that Faith is supernatural in essence, and cannot be produced, but by the special grace of the holy Ghost (whatsoever you may think to the contrary) and that the Holy Ghost cannot move to an action, all things considered, imprudent; it follows, that an act of Faith, cannot be imprudent, as it is impossible it should be supernatural in essence, and not involve an order, or reference, to a supernatural cause. Now yourself here (N. 9) confess, that without credible reasons, and inducements, our choice even of the true Faith, is not to be commended as prudent, but to be condemned of rashness and levity. I say, an act of Faith must always be prudent, not that every one, must be able to give 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 belief of such a man, is indeed prudent. I wonder what could move you (N. 10.) to say to Charity Maintained; It is against Truth and Charity to say as you do that they: with cannot do so (that is cannot give a Reason and account of their Faith) either are not at all, or to no purpose true believers: whereas Charity Maintained hath no such matter. 8. In your (N. 11.12.) you say It is not Heresy to oppose au Truth proposed by the Church, but only such a Truth, as is an essential part of the Gospel of Christ. 9 Answer: you have no constancy in your doctrine. Here you say, Heresy cannot be without error against some essential part of the Gospel of Christ. And; every error against any Doctrine revealed by God, is not a damnable Heresy, unless it be revealed publicly, plainly with a command that all should believe it. By essential, I suppose you mean Necessary, and Fundamental, as contrarily (Pag. 140. N. 26.) you say not Fundamental, ●. e. no essential point of Christianity. But contrary to this your doctrine, in other places you teach, that whatsoever is opposite to Scripture, is an Heresy; as (Pag: 101. N. 127.) you say; If Scripture be sufficient to inform us what is the Faith, it must of necessity be also sufficient to teach us what is Heresy; seeing 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; therefore you cannot deny, but that error against any such text, being a deviation from, and an opposition to Faith, must necessarily be heresy: which is more clear in your grounds, who teach, that it is impossible, to know what points in Scripture be fundamental, and consequently what is Heresy, if you take it for a deviation, only from fundamentall points. And this you declare clearly in the same Number, (Pag: 102.) Saying: If any man should obstinately contradicnt the truth of any thing plainly delivered in Scripture, who doth not see, that every one who believes the Scripture, hath a sufficient means to discover, and condemn, and avoid that Heresy, without any need of an infallible guide? You teach also, that, as things are ordered, there is equal necessity of believing all things contained in Scripture, whether they be Fundamental, or not Fundamental: and nothing is more frequent in your Book, than that it is a damnable sin, to disbelieve any one truth, sufficiently propounded to be revealed by God, and what sin can it be but the sin of Heresy, which is opposite to the Theological virtue of Faith? Potter also, speaks clearly to this purpose, saying (Pag: 98.) He is justly esteemed an Heretic, who yealds not to Scripture sufficiently propounded, and yet it is clear, that in Scripture there are millions of truths, not Fundamental. And (Pag: 128.) An obstinate standing out against evident Scripture cleared unto him makes an Heretic: And (Pag: 247.) If a man by reading the Scriptures be convinced of the truth, this is a sufficient proposition to prove him th●t gainesayeth any such truth, to be an Heretic, and obstinate opposer of the Faith: And (Pag: 212.) It is true, whatsoever is revealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of Scripture, is in some sense Fundamental, in regard of the Divine Authority of God and his word, by which it is recommended: that is, such, as may not be denied or contradicted without in fidelity: Such as every Christian is bound with humility, and reverence to believe whensoever the knowledge thereof 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 error, and he who is thus convinced, is an Heretic, and Heresy is a work 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 believe all revealed truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they are of God. And (Pag: 57) Whosoever either wilfully opposes any Catholic verity maintained by this Church, the fellowship of the Saints (or the Catholic visible Church) as do Heretics; 〈◊〉 perversely divides himself fromthe Catholic communion, as do Schismatiks: the condition of both these is damnable. And Field (L. 2. C. 3,) speaks plainly: Freedom from Fundamental error, may be found among Heretics; Therefore error, against points not fundamenntall is Heresy, seeing they be may Heretics, and yet be free from fundamentall error. Fulk (in his Rejoinder to Bristol P. 82.) The parliament determined Heresy by contrariety to the Canonical 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 fundamental errors, and that, you are not able to determine, what errors be fundamental, and then who will be careful to avoid they know not what: For the rest of this number, I need only say, that it is unreasonable in you to desire a proof, of that which here you expressly grant to be true, and is clear of itself; that either the Protestant, or Roman Church, must err against the word, and testimony of God, seeing 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, seeing we always speak of contradiction in matter of Faith. Your (N. 13.) contains no difficulty, supposing we have already proved, the infallibility of the Church, as we have done in divers places. 10. To your (N. 14.) I answer; that if Luther were an Heretic, who can deny, but that they who followed, and persist in the same Doctrine, must also be such; seeing it is a foolery, to think, that all of them can be excused by ignorance? Besides we speak, per se loquendo that the Doctrine of itself being Heretical, the defenders of it must also be Heretics, abstracting from ignorance, etc. And so your distinction, out of S. Austin, of Haeretici, and Heraeticorum sequace is not pertinent; neither did Charity Maintained ever affirm, that alls Arians, who followed their teachers, were excused from formal Heresy by Salvianus, and I am sure, Changed Ma: himself is far from any such opinion; yea even Dr. Potter, who (Pag: 119.) allegeth the words of Salvianus, saith he speaks of some Arian Heretics; from whence it doth not follow, that he spoke of all those, who followed their teachers; and those of whom he spoke, he doth not absolutely excuse, but says, How they shall be punished in the last day of judgement, for this error of their false opinion, none but the judge himself can know: Qualiter pro hoc ipso falsae opinionis errore in die Judicij puniendi sunt, nullus potest scire nisi Judex, as Potter citys him in the margin: Which words if one take in rigour, suppose, they are to be punished, and that they have 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 yourself though you pronounce the leaders among the Artans formal Heretics (which words you put in a different letter as if they were his words, though I find them not in him) yet confess that Salvian was at least doubtful (that at least is your own word) whether these Arians who in simplicity followed their teachers, might not be excused by ignorance. And about this suspension of his you also seem suspended, for you neither approve nor condemn it. Thus you, not without some tincture of your Gall. For Changed Ma: being only to declare Salvians mind, had neither reason, nor occasion, to declare, in this place, his own 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 Book, where you will find, but very cold comfort, for such as hope to be saved by ignorance. 11. That which follows, is more against Potter, then against Ch: Ma:, who grounds his argument, upon the express words of the Doctor, That to confine the Church to one part, and place, as the Donatists did to Africa, was an error, In the matter and nature of it properly Heretical, against that Article of the Creed, wherein we profess to believe the Holy Catholic Church. To which Major proposition he adds this Minor. But Luther's Reformation, or Church (if one man may be called a Church) was not universal, but confined, to that place, which contained Luther's body; (a less compass than Africa.) Therefore his Reformation, or doctrine can not be excused from formal Heresy. This Deduction to me seems no less than demonstrative, supposing the express grant of Dr. Potter for the Major proposition, and yet you are pleased to call it a rope of Sand, and an unsyllogisticall syllogism, and say it is even cousin German to this; To deny the Resurrection is properly an heresy; but the preaching of the Gospel at the beginning was not universal; Therefore it ●●nnot be excused from formal heresy. For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not deny the Resurrection, so may he also not deny the Church's universality; and as the Apostles who preached the Gospel in the beginning did believe the Church universal, though their preaching at the beginning was not so; so Luther also might, and did believe the Church universal, though his Reformation were but particular. But good Sir, how then do you defend your client, the Doctor from this your argument? To say, the visible Church is confined to one place, is properly an heresy, as Potter affirms it to be; But the preaching of the Gospel at the beginning was but in one place, therefore it was formal Heresy. As also from your other: To deny the Resurrection is properly an Heresy etc. Be pleased then, to do 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 sixteen hundred years, it was reduced, not only to that compass, which contained Luther's body, but that it was corrupted, with many, and damnable errors, that is, in true Divinity, to a No-Church; yea, and that many chief Protestants expressly affirm, that it wholly perished, is a vast Heresy; unless you would rather call it, by the name of infidelity; the consideration whereof, did bring some chief learned Protestants to renounce Christian Religion. And so your argument, drawn from the first preaching of the Apostles, is of no force, and cousin German to this: To deny, that divers Churches, and Nations did receive the Faith of Christ (as S. Paul testifieth of the Church of Rome in particular) is properly an Heresy, against the express words of Scripture; but at the very first preaching of the Apostles, Rome, and many other places, did not receive 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 universal de jure, because it ought to be so, is no less ridiculous, then impious, against the promise of our Saviour, which was that she was de facto to be universal, and not, that she ought to be universal, and perpetual, as every man ought to be virtuous, and as the Donatists did not deny she ought to be universal, as Ch. Ma. shows (N. 17. Pag. 242.) of which Number you take notice, for some other matter, but dissemble this point, which yourself also affirm (Pag: 300. N. 99) in these words: The Truth is the Donatists had set up 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 deceived, because the intention of the Donatists, was not that which you feign, for your own purpose, but under pretence to take care of their Brethren in that City, though indeed that the world might account them catholics, by communicating with the Bishop of Rome, with whom to communicate, was taken by the Ancient Fathers, for an assured sign of being a true Catholic. They had also, as S. Austin (de unitate 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, saith (Epist. 163.) Here did he first attempt to affirm, that his communion was spread over the whole earth etc. But because the thing was evidently false, they got out of this discourse by confusion of Language: Whereby nevertheless they sufficiently declared, that they did not hold, that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined, to one place, but only by mere 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 speed over the whole world. In which point Fortunius, and the rest, were more modest than he who should affirm, that Luther's 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 said (N. 17.) whereof you thought safest, to take no notice, as indeed destructive of your argument. As for your objection, that the greater part of the world▪ is not Christian, etc. every Christian, and in particular, Dr. Potter must answer it; seeing 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 fail from all places, which is more than even the Donatists taught, who pretended, that she remained at least in Africa. Now, as for your Syllogisms, make them like to that of Ch. Ma., and they will not be like a rope of sand, or unsyllogisticall, but will appear in this manner: To deny the Resurrection is to teach an Heresy, but some have denied the Resurrection; Therefore some have taught an heresy, as Ch. Ma. said; To deny the Church to be de facto universal, for all times, is to teach Ann: heresy, as even Dr. Potter affirms but Luther at his first being when he said of himself, Primò solus eram, denied the Church to be universal; Therefore he taught an heresy. But enough of this, whereof I have more heretofore. Your bold speech against S. Austin, that he was most palpably mistaken, I omit, as being but agreeable 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 leave 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 spite and malice as could be devised; But, by your leave, who is ignorant, that the Donatists, hated the name of a monastical life; constrained Religious Nuns to forsake their Profession; cast the Eucharist to Beasts; demolished Altars; persecuted Catholics, in all kinds, and detracted from their good name, accusing them for Traditors, (you know who have murdered innocent, holy, learned Catholics, under a most false pretence of Treason) as also that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiastical, to secular Judges, in spiritual 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 Catholics set up pictures upon the Altar, hath been answered at large, heretofore. 13. Your (N. 17.) objects to Ch: Ma: a contradiction, as if he said, the Donatists held the Church to have perished, and yet that the Protestants are worse than Donatists, who said that the Church remained at least in Africa. But certainly no Logic 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 un it. Eccles: cap: 13.) Periisse dicunt de coetero mundo Ecclesiam, & in part Donati in sola Africa mansisse. And you know very well, that Ch: Ma: in that place, speaks not of the perishing, or extinction of the Church, absolutely but expressly, as it was asserted by the Donatists. 14. All that you have (N. 18.) hath been answered, in several places, and it seems you are too well furnished with leisure, when (N. 19) to the demand of Ch: Ma: (Pag: 251. How can the Church more truly be said to perish, then when she is permitted to maintain a damnable Heresy?) You answer, she may more truly be said to perish, when she is not only permitted to do so, but de facto doth maintain a damnable Heresy; as if when we say, God permitted one to fall, into such a sin, it did not signify, that de facto he fell into it. But here you discover, a secret poison, that Faith is not the gift of God, nor requires his particular assistance to persever therein, which if it were substracted, and so we be permitted to fall, we shall be too sure to fall de facto; otherwise it follows, that by our own natural forces, we may believe, and persever in Faith. In the rest of your instances, that the Church may be more truly said to perish, if she fall into Heresy Fundamental of itself, you do but trifle, seeing that either one truth, cannot be more true than an other, as divers teach; or else you know, that for our purpose, it is more than sufficient, that it be certainly, and absolutely, and avoidable true, that the Church must perish, if she fall into any damnable error. But the truth is, you use this art, to divert the Reader, from the Demand of Ch: Ma: that he might not observe, your not giving Answer thereto: and therefore, I must return to make the same demand; Whether the Church, were not truly said 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 mind, that you forget your own 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 said to perish, when she rejects even those truths, out of which her heresies may be reform, as if she should directly deny the Scripture to be the Word of God. How will you avoid, but that according to this last saying of yours, yourself and your associates, are no members of any Church, seeing you teach that the Scripture may be denied, to be the word of God, as not being a material object of Faith? Or how must not your errors be desperate without possibility of being reform, since you may reject those means by which alone, according to Protestants, they can be reform? Or how could you say truly, That a Church lapsed may be recovered, and reform by Scripture, if you be not obliged to believe Scripture itself, by an act of Faith, or as an object of Faith? 15. In your (N. 20.) you do but repeat, what you say else where; That if the visible Church be an infallible guide, it is strange, the Scripture doth nowhere say so, in plain terms. To which I answer, as heretofore, that we prove the infallibility of the Church, independently of Scripture: That Scripture also speaks clearly enough thereof; That I may as well ask of you, why the Apostles, and Evangelists have not delivered clearly, these or the like Propositions? Scripture alone contains all things belonging to Faith; That it is evident in all necessary points etc. or, Be sure to believe a certain man, who will come to oppose the errors of the Roman Church, called Luther etc. Nay, though the Scripture had said, believe the Roman Church in all things, which she proposes, you would not have wanted evasions, by saying, we should believe her, as far as she agreed with Scripture, or in Fundamental points only, as now Protestants say of the universal Church. 16. Ch: Ma: (Pag: 251. N. 18.) saith: The Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assign separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresy, which he proves by some texts of Scripture; as (1. Joan: 2.19.) They went out from us; And (Actor: 15.24.) Some went out from us; and (Actor: 20.30.) Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things. This, say you, is certainly a strange and unheard of strain of Logic, unless we will say that every text when in it is said that some body, goes out from some body affoards an argument for this purpose: and yet you confess that Heretics do always separate from the visible Church; but that they who do so are not always Heretics. Now if all Heretics separate from the visible Church, and yet do not separate from every some body (for they do not separate from themselves, and their own Associates) it is a sign, that their is great difference, betwixt some some body, and orhers some body, between separating from the Church, or the Congregation of the Faithful, and from every other some body. But if I prove these propositions; every heretic separates from the Church, and, every one that separates from the Church is an heretic, to be convertible, you will yield such a separation to be a Mark of Heresy. This is easily done, by taking your own grant, That Heretics do always separate from the Church. For Heresy being an error against some revealed truth, if the Church also may err against any such truth, there is no necessity, that an heretic should separate from the Church, but may very well agree with her in such error, and so the first part of your assertion (that Heretics do always separate from the Church) would be false: or if the Church cannot err; every one who separates from her, in matters of Faith, must be guilty of an error against Faith, and so be an heretic: if therefore the first part of your assertion be true, you must grant, that the second is false; and that, as every heretic separates from the Church, so conversiuè every one, who separates from the Church, in matters of belief, is an heretic; and than it is no wonder, if Scripture, and Fathers, assign a separation, or going out of the Church, as a mark of Heresy. Which may be further declared in this manner. If all Heretics 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 Belief, which she holds, and is opposite to the error, which makes them Heretics, and which whosoever hold, are Heretics, and consequently, whosoever leaves the Church, by occasion of such errors, are Heretics, and if they had not held such errors, they had remained in the Church; Therefore, for the same reason, for which all Heretics forsake the Church, we must necessarily infer, that whosoever forsake the Church's doctrine are Heretics; that is, for the errors, which they hold against the truth, which the Church is supposed to believe; and if she be supposed to believe an error, an heretic may believe the same and so go out of her, no more, than she goes out of herself. For this cause, our Saviour said (Matth. 24.26.) If therefore they shall say unto you behold he is in the desert, go you not forth: Of which words Henoch Clapham (in his sovereign remedy against Schism Pag: 23.) saith, that thereby our Saviour forbids going out unto such desert and corner gospels; which declares that going out of the Church is Heresy, or Schism, and not only, that all Heretics, or Schismatics go out. And now I hope you being convinced by Reason, will be better disposed to receive authority, and the true exposition of the text alleged above by Ch: Ma: of which you say; For the first place, there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretics, but no Christians, and Antichrists, of such as denied jesus to be the Christ. Answer: That S. John speaks of Heretics, will appear by reading Cornelius a Lapide upon this psace, who citys holy Fathers to the same purpose. See also the annotation of the Rheims Testament, upon this Chapter of S. John. (Uers: 18.) showing out of S. Cyprian, 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 (Epitome: Histor: Ecclesias: cent: 1. lib: 3. cap: 1.) saith Nota, Haereticiex Ecclesia progrediuntur. 17. The second place, say you, It is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretics; for it speaks only of some who believed and taught an error, when it was yet a question, and not evident, and therefore according to your Doctrine, no formal Heresy. Answer; I see no such certainty, as you pretend, that the text, (Act: 15.24.) Some went out from us, must not speak of Heretics, that is of persons, who held an error against a revealed truth, of which some might have been sufficiently informed, before the Council, and Definition, or Declaration of the Apostles; and that some did proceed, in a turbulent, and as a man may say, Heretical manner, appears by reading the same Chapter in the Acts. And for our present purpose, it is sufficient, that separation from the Church, is a sign, at least of a material Heresy, or Heretic; since the being a formal Heretic, depends upon individual, personal, and accidental circumstances, of which to judge in particular, is the part of prudence, not of Faith; though if once the party know, that his opinion, is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, and will yet persist therein, and rather leave the Church, than forsake it, he cannot be excused from pride, singularity, and Heresy. 18. You say; The third says indeed, that of the Professors of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy: But not one of them all that says, or intimates, that whosoever separates from the visible Church, in what state soever is certainly an Heretic. Answer; we have showed, that as you say, all that are Heretics go out of the Church, so you must grant that whosoever separates (for matter of Doctrine) from the visible Church, is an Heretic. And holy Scripture mentioning so particularly and frequently, going out, or separation, doth clearly put a particular emphasis, and force therein, as a mark of falls believers, and seducers. And this to be the sense, of the Holy Fathers, Changed Ma. hath proved; and now we will make good his Proofs, by confuting your evasions to the contrary. And I must entreat the Reader, to consider the words of the Fathers, as they are cited in Charity Maintained, 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, alleged by Ch. Ma. (N. 18.) to prove, that separation from the visible Church, is a mark of Heresy, namely, Uincentius Lirinensis, saying (Lib. Advers. Her. Chap. 34.) who ever began heresies, who did not first separate himself from the Universality Antiquity, and Consent of the Catholic Church? And S. Prosper (Dimid. Temp. Chap. 5.) A Christian communicating with the Catholic Church, is a Catholic, and he who is divided fro●● her, is an Heretic, and Antichrist. S. Cyprian (Lib. de Vnit. Eccles.) Not we departed from them, but they from us; and since Heresies and Schisms are bred afterwards, while they make themselves divers conventicles, they have forsaken the head and Origen of truth. 20. To these Authorityes, you answer; That the first and last are merely 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 universality, Consent, and Antiquity. And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true, according to your own grounds; For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon myere Schism 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 excommunication, and be both before and after a very good Catholic; and therefore you cannot maintain it universally true, That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretic, and Antichrist. 21. Answer; I have often put you in mind, and the thing is evident of itself, 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 have erred, against the Word of God, the Rule of those Fathers, That separation from the Church is a mark of Heresy, had been plainly impertinent, and of no use at all. For still the Question would have remained, whether the Church of all Ages had erred, as well as the present Church; since we cannot know what the Ancient Church taught, except upon the credit, and Tradition of middle ages till our time, which passage if it be stopped, and bridge broken, we must live in ignorance; and not be able irregularly, and per saltum, to reach immediately, from the last to the first. Besides, you hold, all Churches of all Ages to be fallible, and not to deliver universally any other point, except that Scripture is the Word of God; and therefore it is a mere evasion in you to make a difference, for matters of doctrine, between 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 speaks expressly of the, then present, Church: Not we departed from them, but they from us; and since Heresies and Schisms are bred aftherwards, while they make themselves divers Conventicles, they have forsaken the head and origin of Truth. As for S. Prosper; you do not defend, but impugn him. But I wonder you will offer your Reader, such toys, as you produce for good Arguments, against the words of that Saint, which are both evidently true, and coherent with themselves. For, as whosoever communicates with the universal Church in Faith, and external communion, is a Catholic, (which was the first part of S. Prospers sentence) so it is universally true, that, whosoever is divided from the Church in Faith, and external communion, is an Heretic, as S. Prosper affirms in the latter part of his speech, and which you know is the thing which Charity Maintained intends to prove; and which makes your talking of mere Schism without any mixture of Heresy, to be wholly impertinent; seeing we treat of division both in Faith, and external communion: though it be also true, that Schism is wont to end in Heresy, as Cham 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 Schism, or Heresy, (as hath been declared heretofore at large) and which is not incurred at all, in the sight of God, if the Excommunication be . Agreeable to this doctrine of these Fathers, is that excellent document of S. Optatus (Lib. 1. contra Parm.) how to judge who be Schismatics, and Heretics: 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 up in the place of Catholic 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 Protestant's by the Rule of this holy, and ancient Father, you cannot but condemn them of Schism, and Heresy. 22. Your (N, 22.) being but a passage to the next Section; I need only say, that there is great difference, between Catholics, and Protestants in order to the admitting, or rejecting, some doctrine of some particular Fathers, seeing we, for interpreting Scripture, and all Points of Faith, acknowledge an infallible guide, to whom even the Fathers themselves humbly submit; but when you forsake the Fathers, be they never so many, the comparison runs not between them, and God's Church, but between them, and every single Protestant; and who will not sooner believe the Holy Fathers, for the interpretation of Scripture, than such men, as can neither agree amongst themselves, nor with the whole Church of God? And if you will but hear, what your own knowledge, and conscience, tells you, you will confess, that you acknowledged, the ancient Fathers to stand for us. 23. Your (N. 23.) is employed in answering some Authorityes, alleged by Ch. Ma., out of S. Hierom, wherein you show the little 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 Chair of Peter; I know the Church is built upon that Rock. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb out of this house he is profane. If any shall not be in the Ark of No, 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 Catholics who have translated nothing of the error of Origen. And yet further (Ibid. Lib. 3.) know thou that the Roman Faith commended by the voice of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions, though an Angel should denounce otherwise, than it hath once been 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 Hebrews Canonical, upon the Authority of the Eastern Church, then to reject it from the Canon upon the Authority of the Roman. But this hath been answered heretofore; neither was there ever any decree of the Roman Church, Pope, or Council, 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 believe that Liberius Bispop of Rome either was or could have been wrought over by the solicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileiae, and brought after two year's banishment to subscribe Heresy? Sr. It is a sign you want solid Objections, when you fly to so fare fetched evasions; and your proceeding is inexcusable, in dissembling the Answer which Ch. Ma. (Part. 2. Chap. 3, N. 30.) gives out of Baronius, Ann. 357. and Bellarmine (De Roman. Pont. Lib. 4. Cap. 9) who affirm, that Liberius never subscribed to Arianism, or any error against Faith, but only to a Point which concerned matter of fact; and even greater Protestant's than you, doubt of that which you will needs have to be undoubted. But indeed this old Objection is directly nothing to the purpose, of proving that Liberius did ever define ex cathedra, any error against Faith, but only that de facto, by force of fear, 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 said, Oravi pro te Petre, utnon deficiat Fides tua: or, as the same Apostle was reprehended by S. Paul, even after, the coming of the holy Ghost, and yet I hope you will not deny, but that one might have said, I am in the communio of the Chair of Peter, I know that the Church is built vpon that Rock; whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth; and the same I say▪ S. Hierom might have said 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 constant, not only in the true faith, which he never lost, but also in the profession thereof, and what he did by force, and fear, 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 said, men were to obey the words of the Scribes, and Pharisees, not their deeds. Is it not a doctrine of your own, (Pag. 144: N. 31.) that the doctrine of the Apostles was either falls or uncertain, in no part of that which they delivered constantly? And certain it is, that Liberius did not make good his subscription (if ever he subscribed to an error) but revoked it, assoon as he was at liberty, and (as I may say) taken of the Torture; as always before, he had defended the Catholic truth. If Marcellinus sacrificed to Idols; who will therefore say, that he believed, or defined Idolary to be Lawful? And universally, if you will judge men's Faith by their Actions, whosoever commits theft, murder, or any other sin against the commandments, must be condemned for an Heretic, as believing theft to be Lawful. Finally, if you will have the strength of of S. Hieroms Argument, to cosist in this, that Damasus was in the right, only actually, and accidentally, the Saint had begged the Question, and proved his own Doctrine to be true, because Damasus held with him, and that which Damasus held, de facto was true, though Damasus might err, as other Bishop's might; whereas it is clear, that S. Hierom (as his words express) grounds himself, upon that firm and stable Rock, of which our Saviour said, Thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock. etc. And this last overthrows 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 between S. Cyprian, being disinterressed, and delivering a general Doctrine, and prescriptions against all Heretics, and S. Cyprian, speaking in a particular point, wherein he was engaged, and which Protestants confess to have been an error, condemned by the whole Church, against the Donatists (namely the rebaptisation of such, as had been baptised by Heretics) and by those very Bishops, who once adhered to S. Cyprian, as Charity. Maint. in the place cited even now, shows out of S. Hierom. And you do but deceive your Reader, in not making a difference, between a Decree of Pope Stephen, and a Definition of Faith, which difference you might have learned in that very place, which you cite out of Bellarmine, and we have now alleged. In fine, all must answer the difficulty about S. Cyprian, seeing he was in an error against Faith, and therefore could be excused only by ignorance, or pardoned by repentance. In vain (N. 26.) you tax the translation of Ch. Ma. as if he should not have said out of S. Cyprian Epist. 55. ad Cornel. (They are hold to sail to the Chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, from whence Priestly Unity hath spruing. Neither do they consider, that they are Romans, whose Faith was commended, by the preaching of the Apostle, to whom falsehood cannot have access) but should have said, to whom perfidiousness cannot have access. But this you say without proof, against the scope and connection of S. Cyprians words, which speak of Faith commended by S. Paul (not of Fidelity) and consequently of falsehood or perfidiousness, or error contrary to Faith; not of perfidiousness, contrary to the Moral virtue of fidelity. For what congruity is there in this speech? The Faith of the Romans is commended by the Apostle, therefore perfidiousness, or perfidious dealing cannot have access to them, as if all who believe aright, must also besincere, and upright honest men! Whereas the consequence is very good and clear, that if their Faith, be true, error against Faith, or falsehood, cannot be approved by them. You would prove that in vain S. Cyprian had exhorted Cornelius to take heed of those Heretics, if he had conceived the Bishop of Rome, to be infallible for matters of Faith; as if the certainty of attaining an end did exclude Means of Exhortations, Prayer, and the like: or as if God could not effectually move us, to what he best pleases, unless he also make us believe, that we may tempt him, by omitting all diligence of our own, towards the attaining of that, to which he moves us, or interposes a Promise, that he will grant it us. You say, if we believe the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, the Prerogative of the Church of Rome of being the principal Church, was grounded upon this reason, because the City was the principal and imperial City. But I conceive yourself cannot believe, that the Greek Church, would or could yield such a spiritual Prerogative to the Latin Church, vpon 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 City, which was, as I may say, the Primate of Cities. Yet I am not sorry, to hear you say: We do not altogether deny, but that the Church of Rome might be called the chair of Peter, in regard he is said to have preached the Gospel there. For, to omit, that you dare not deny, that S. Peter was at Rome (which some Protestants impudently deny) you give so poor a reason, why the Church of Rome, hath been particularly, by the Fathers, called the chair of Peter, that every one may see, there must be some better ground for it, than that which you allege, of his preaching in that City, as it is granted, that he not only preached in, but was Bishop of the City of Antioch, and he preached in many other places, which yet are not wont to be called the Chair of Peter. I beseech the Reader to peruse that learned Book called Anti-Mortonus (against the Grand imposture of D. Morton) § 4. about the Council of Chalcedon; and he will find what Power was acknowledged to be in the Bishop of Rome above all Bishops through the whole world: to say nothing for the present, that no Council without the confirmation of the Pope is of validity. 26. Your (N. 28. 29. 30.) contain long discourses, upon occasion of a place cited by Ch. Ma. out of S. Irenaeus, who (Lib. 3. Cont. Hoeres. Chap: 36.) sayeth: Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition of the most great, most ancient, and most known Church, founded by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, which Tradition it hath from the Apostles, coming to us, by succession of Bishops, confound all those who any way either by evil complacence of themselves, or vain glory, or by blindness, or ill opinion do gather conventicles otherwise then they ought. For to this Church for a more powerful principality, it is necessary that all Church's resort, that is, all faithful people of what place soever, in which (Roman Church) the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath always been conserved from those who are every where. 27. To this authority of S. Irenaeus you give divers answers, which upon examination, will be found insufficient, and contrary to yourself. You say: the words set down by Ch: Ma: show, that what Authority in the matter S. Irenaeus attributed to the Roman Church in particular, the same for the kind (though perhaps not in the same degree) he attributed to all other Apostolic Churches; Answer, S. Irenaeus is so fare from affirming an equality between the Roman, and other Churches: that he expressly prefers her before the rest, in such manner, as though the rest had then had no Being, yet all Heretics might have been confuted by her sole authority. For, seeing he acknowledges it needless, to number the successions of other Churches; in order to the force of his Argument, he might as well have supposed them not to exist, as not to be necessarily taken notice of; which he never said of any other Apostolic Church. Beside, since he takes the Roman, for as good as all other Apostolic Churches, and (for the same reason) of all other Churches of that time (whose successors he held it needless to reckon) it being impossible that all Churches should fail in Faith, we must conclude, even out of S. Irenaeus his Reason, that the Roman Church cannot fail 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 mark of a Catholic, or separation from it a certain mark of a Heretic) For, seeing Cyou hold hristian Faith te be no more than probable, and that the Tradition for which you receive Scripture, is humane and fallible, how can you, (these your assertions supposed) affirm, that a testimony humane and fallible may not be sufficient, to prove one a Catholic or Heretic? Unless you will say, he is no Heretic who rejects Scripture, and all Christianity, nor that he is a Catholic, who believes them, because you profess that the motives for which you believe them are fallible. 28. You find fault, with the noble Translatresse of Cardinal Perron, for rendering, 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 have no reason against that noble Translatresse. See I say, the word Conveni, and you will find: Convenit in eum haec Contumelia. Cic. This reproach toucheth him justly. Conveniunt hae vites ad quemvis agrum: Cato. Uarro. These vines prove well in all grounds. Conveniebat in tuam vaginam machaera militis. Plautus. The solidours sword was meet for thy Scabbard. Convenit optime ad pedem cothurnus. Cic. The slippar is as meet for the foot 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 foot? Neither is that Translation either contrary, or different, from the Translation of Ch: Ma: for as much as concerns the matter, and meaning of S. Irenaeus (To this Church it is necessary, that all Church's resort) For why should all Church's 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, control, and disagree from her? Otherwise it had been a strange Argument to convince Heretics by the Roman Church, if he had not taken that Church, as a model, and Rule with which they ought to agree. Neither doth resort signify a corporal going to Rome, but a recourse for instruction, either by going thither themselves, or by other means, as you must say of those who are round about. But you say, if S. Irenaeus had said, By showing the tradition of the Roman Church we confound all Heretics. For to this Church, all Churches must agree, what had this been, but to give for a reason, that which was more questionable than 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 been weak and ridiculous. Answer: This your Objection, proves too much, even in your own 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 Heretics, and consequently that this sufficiency was not more questionable, than the thing in question. For if it were so, you make (to use your own words) his speech 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 Heretics, (surely not by a weak and ridiculous Reason:) Yea S. Irenaeus affirms it to be sufficient to confute not only those, but all Heretics (all those sayeth he, who any way either by evil complacence etc.) and therefore He must suppose as a principle, believed by all orthodox Christians, that the Tradition of the Roman Church, was powerful against all Heresies. And I am glad to see you at length reflect, that if S. Irenaeus did not prove, that all Churches must agree with the Roman, his Argument had been weak and ridiculous. For by this your consideration, I infer, that the Answer which you and other Protestants are wont to give to S. Austin, or other Fathers is insufficient, to wit; That they allege against Heretics 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 been only to beg the Question, or as you say, to give for a reason, that which was more questionable, than the thing in Question; and I beseech the Reader, to consider well this point, as a thing effectual to make good my confutation of Chillingworths' evasions, in divers occasions, and lately in our debate about S. Optatus. And even here you beg the Question, though you read it (resort) for the same reason, that you say S. Irenaeus had begged the Question, if we read (agree.) In the speech which you feign S. Irenaeus to make (as yourself would have him speak) you say: To this Church, by reason it is placed in the Imperial City, whether all men's affairs do necessarily draw them, or by reason of the powerful Principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches, there is, and always hath been a necessity ●f a perpetual recourse of all the faithful round about: who if there hath been any alteration in the Church of Rome, could not in all probality but have observed it. But they to the contrary, have always observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other; where you make good, that powerful argument of Catholics against Protestants; That it was impossible so many errors, and corruptions, should creep insensibly into the belief of the Roman Church; seeing (as you say) to this Church by reason it is placed in the Imperial City, whither all mens affares do necessarily draw them, or by reason of the powerful Principality it hath over all the adjacent Churches, there is etc. Who if there had been any alteration in this Church of Rome, could not in all probability but have observed it. But they to the contrary, have always observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other. Which retortion grows 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 years, which are numbered between S. Austin▪ and S. Gregory the Great, and yet Protestants commonly grant, that in S. Austin's time the Church was free from those (falsely pretended) errors, which they say were found in the time of S. Gregory: and therefore you must either grant, That S. Irenaeus did vainly impugn those old Heretics, and that you against reason approve his Argument against them, or else that our new sectaries cannot possibly avoid the Argument, which we Catholics urge, to prove, that it was impossible, so many, so great, and so manifest corruptions, should in so short a time, possess the whole Church of God; especially seeing, to the contrary, all men, in all, and every one of those Ages, did conceive, that they could observe in the Church of Rome the very Tradition which came from the Apostles, and no other. And if notwithstanding this, you say, That between the time of S. Austin, and the Popedom of S. Gregory, so many errors 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, unless you relinquish those your pretended Brethren: and finally we must conclude, that no convincing argument could be brought against Heretics, drawn from the Tradition of the Roman Church, if once we grant that she is not infallible in her traditions wherein if she be infallible, adhering to her will be a certain mark of a Catholic, and separation from her a certain mark of an Heretic. 29. You tax Ch: Ma: for translating undique; 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 Apostolic Tradition hath always been conserved from those who are every where, is not sense. Now in stead of conservata read observata, and translate undique truly round about, and then the sense will be both plain and good; for than is must be rendered thus. For to this Church, by reason of a more powerful principality, there is a necessity all the Churches, that is, all the Faithful round about, should resort, in which the Apostlique Tradition hath been always 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 undique may signify, every where (as Ch: Ma: translates it▪) from all places, parts, and corners, you will find in Thomas Thomasius and Cowper: and who made you Emperor of words to command a restraint of their signification, as may best suit with your ends? S. Austin (super Psalm. 86.) hath thrice, Vndique in this signification. For having said; Duodecim sedes quid sibi velint, videamus: he adds; Sacramentum est cujusdam universitatis, quia per totum orbem terrarum futura erat Ecclesia. Et ideo quia undique venitur ad judicandum, duodecim sedes sunt: sicut quia undique intratur in illam civitatem duodecim 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 undique to places round about, or adjacent, and not grant that it signifies the whole world? The learned Fevardentius, in his Annotations upon this place of S. Irenaeus, not only affirms, that by eos, qui sunt undique fideles, all Churches of the whole world are understood, but proves it with much clearness, and erudition; observing, among other things, that it is said, Ad hanc Ecclesiam. not, ad urbis amplitudinem, populorum frequentiam, non ad imperij culmen, non ad Caesarum majestem, sed ad hanc Ecclesiam. Thus your first objection, being proved to be grounded merely upon a confidence that undique: must be taken, in this place, as you would have it; and withal 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 Apostolic Tradition hath always been conserved there from those who are every where, than to say, The Apostolic Tradition hath always been conserved there from those who are round about) you fall upon a conjecture, that in all probability, in stead of conservata, it should be observata, although no copy, either printed, or manuscript, reads it in that manner: and suppose, it were observata, the difficulty would still remain, what observata might signify, whether observed, that is kept, and maintained, (and then it were all one with conserved) or observed, that is, marked, found, perceived, or the like; as you would have it; not considering, that by this conceit, you wholly alter the Argument of S. Irenaeus, and substitute an other; For whereas that holy Bishop, and Martyr, grounds his proof against Heretics, upon the Authority and succession of the Roman Church, you make him urge these Heretics, only by the Testimony of people round about that City, 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 been, a mere begging the Question, and no effectual confutation of those Heretics, 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 have been confured otherwise, than by supposing, that the Roman Church was by the Promise of our Saviour Christ, secured from all error against Faith: and (to use your own lately recited words) to say, that the people about Rome would have observed it, if there had been any alteration in the Church of Rome, had been but to give for a reason, that which was more questionable than the thing in question; as being (still to use your own words) not evident in itself (according to the principles of Protestants who de facto hold, that many errors 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 Powerful principality over all the adjacent Churches, it had been more probable, that she might have led them into error, which they would have embraced as an Apostolical Tradition, than that they would or could, have corrected her, if indeed she had been conceyved to be subject to error, no less than the adjacent Churches. Now as for the difficulty of those words: In which the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath always been conserved from those who were every where, yourself must answer it, seeing you hold your conjecture of, observata, to be but probable, and that all hitherto have read it, and do still read it, conservata; and that even though you read it observata, it will be a hard sense to say; In which Church, the Tradition which is from the Apostles, hath always been observed from those who are every where: and if in stead of, from, you say, by, hath been observed by those who are every where (though in that acception you must take (Ab) in a different sense, when it is said, ab Apostolis, from, and when it is said ab his qui sunt undique, by) we may also say, hath been conserved by those who are every where, and the sense will be, that in the Roman Church, there hath always been the Tradition from the Apostles, which hath also been conserved in all Churches, and in which they must agree with Her propter potentiorem Principalitatem, and because she hath an evident and certain succession, as being founded upon a Rock: and in this sense we may also say, that the Tradition receyved from all Churches hath been conserved in the Roman Church, as the centre of Ecclesiastical unity, (to use the words of the most learned Perron, in his Reply Lib. 1. cap: 26.) 31. In your (N. 30.) after other discourses, which contain no difficulty, which may not be answered, by what hath been said 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 Orthodox Christians of his time believed it, and those that did not, he reckons amongst Heretics. Sr. we have no ●eason to believe your word, without some proof. And that you may not ●●use my proof against you, as proceeding from one, who being a party, may be suspected of partiality. I oppose to you a learned Protestant, Doctor Ham: in his View of &c: (Pag: 87.88.89.) who, convinced by evidence of truth, not only confesses, and proves the weakeness of that place in S. justine, to conclude any thing against Catholic Tradition, but also demonstrates, that your allegation is an egregious falsification, while you say, justine martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it, and those that did not he reckons amongst Heretics. For S. Justine expressly affirms, that many do not acknowledge this doctrine of the 1000 years, and those many Christians, that are of pure and pious opinion or judgement; and that those whom he calls, nominal Christians, Atheists, impious heretical leaders, are they, who denied the resurrection, not those that acknowledge the resurrection, and denied the Millennium. And the Doctor concludes in these very words: By justine it cannot be concluded, that the 1000 years was a matter of Catholic belief in his time, but only favoured 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 Catholic Doctrine. (much less a Tradition) were condemned. And he gives us 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 acknowledge my opinion, that there were in that age men otherwise minded, as out of justin it appeared. I could cite an other, highly qualifyed Protestant, who this very year 1651. hath putin print, that Justin confesses, that some good and honest Christians did not acknowledge that Doctrine of the Millenaries, which the Doctor (Pag: 88) shows very well, not to be repugnant to an other saying of S. Justin, to which this last Author says it is repugnant. Now I beseech you consider, how you can impugn God's Church, by a pretended tradition, which not only Catholics, but even learned Protestants, out of S. Justines' words, deny to have been Catholic or universal, in his time, and which this Doctor avouches, not to be asserted as univerfall by the Lord Faulkland himself; whereby this Objection so often repeeted in your Book, comes to just nothing: and I have wondered that so worm-eaten, and obsolete a thing, as this is, should be revived, and urged as a Demonstration against the Traditions of the Church. But it is God's Goodness, to confound the enemies of his Church, by their own wisdom, and confute them by their own arguments: and is it not a great proof for the infallibility of the Church, that these her adversaries, after all labour, and study, can allege only such a toy as this, to prove the fallibility of the Church for so many Ages, wherein she could not but have fallen into many mote, and greater, errors, if she had been subject to accept, and deliver falls, or apocryphal Traditions? If you have a mind to speak to the purpose, you must produce some clear and undoubted Tradition, or some Definition of a Pope, or Council, for this of the Chiliasts, or any other error. But this is as impossible for you to do, as that God can break his Promise, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and that he will be with her to the world's end. You say; If this Tradition of a thousand years was not conserved, and observed in the Church of Rome, had Irenaeus known so much, he must have retracted this commendation of that Church. Not so, by your leave; but, as a true child of God's Church, if he had been persuaded his opinion to be against her Tradition, he would have retracted his opinion, and not his commendation of the Church, upon which he builded his Doctrine against those Heretics, whom he impugned: otherwise his argument taken from her Tradition, had been of no force, but petitio principij, proving their Heresies to be false, because the Church of Rome, which in those particulars did not err, taught the particular opinyons of those men to be false. Especially, since by the confession of S. Justin, Many Christians of pure and pious judgement, held the contrary. 33. Having considered with attention, all the rest that you have in this (N. 30.) I find nothing which hath not been answered, either by me, or by Ch: Ma: (Part: 2. Chap: 2. N. 32.) for as much as belongs to Him; and as for your vain affected flourish against the most learned Cardinal Perron, it is both impertinent to my purpose, and really so slight, that I could not have imagined, you would in modesty have premised these fond words: The words of the Cardinal I will here insert, and with short censures dispel, and let his Idolaters see that Truth is not afraid of Giants. In a word, I must say; That you do not distinguish between matter of Faith, and of Fact; nor consider, that although error against Faith, defended with obstinacy, be, per se loquendo, a sufficient cause of excommunication, yet it may be also necessary, in prudence, for some circumstances, to abstain from inflicting such a censure: and in the case of Pope Victor, the success shown, that even for matter of fact, he was in the right. For after his death, the Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus (which Protestants receive as Lawful General Counsels) excommunicated those, who held the same Custom with the Provinces, which Victor had excommunicated. I have no time to take notice of your seditious speech (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 have excommunicated them, who excommunicated all such as held the 39 Articles to contain any error, as is known you believed them to contain divers. 33. To your (N. 31.32.33.34.35.) I answer; that in the Authorityes alleged out of the Fathers by Ch. Ma. you will still find a particular pre-eminence of the Roman Church; and you could not have done us a greater favour, than to touch the matter of Appeals to Rome, from the whole world, if it had been handled by Ch. Ma. as it was not, and therefore I must refer the Reader to Catholic Writers, and in particular to the learned Cardinals, Bellarmine and Perron, from whom he may receive full satisfaction. Only to what you say (N. 31.) that S. Austin (Lib. 1. retractat. Chap. 26.) retracts what he had said, that the Church was builded upon 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 us. In your (N. 32. you have no reason to find fault with Ch. Ma. for translating Apostolicae Cathedrae semper viguit principatus, the principality of the sea Apostolic did always flourish, seeing it is clear that S. Austin, in that place, attributes a particular privilege to the Sea of Rome, as the Chair of Peter and a Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome, as he speaks (In psalm. Con. partem Donati.) Whereby it appears, that he makes but one chief Apostolic Sea: and it seems this Translation of Ch. Ma. was so good, that yourself could not perceive or tax it, till an excess of desire to trifle, made you at length put it in your margin: it not occurring time 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 known 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, & ubique terrarum Catholici veram fidem profitentes in potestatem Romanorum Pontificum tanquam in respiciunt &c: Hunc enim (Petrum) de caeteris mortalibus ex toto terrarum orbe conditor orbis elegit, cui Cathedram magisterij principaliter possidendam perpetuo privilegij jure concessit; ut quis quis Divinum aliquid, 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 Counsels: Neither can I believe that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelve hundred years a go 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 fare from being a parasite; and an Embassage was sent to Rome from him; the Emperor; and people; in congratulation of the victory gotten chief by means of Pope Caelestinus, against Nestorius: all which declared, the Authority of the Roman Church 1200, years ago, though you tell us you cannot believe it; and though you take notice of Maximianus, who succeeded Nestorius, yet you thought fit to dissemble this Embassage etc. Whereof more may be seen in Baronius. Ann: 431.432. Your answer given (N. 37.) to the Authority 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 entreat the Reader, not to trust your summing up the Discourse, of Ch: Ma: (N. 20.21.22.23.) but to trust only his own eyes, which if he do, I am sure he will find all that you object against us, in the said Numbers, to be answered already, when we proved, that Faith is the Gift of God; and that, in the ordinary course of God's Providence, it is exauditu, by the preaching of Pastors, Prelates, Doctors etc. And the necessity of a perpetual succession of Bishops, in the true Church: besides, what hath been said heretofore, appears by the confession of the best learned Protestants, as may be seen 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 us in what manner he pleases, but seeing, de facto, he will have men to be taught by men, and that Faith is his Gift (as we proved in the Introduction) we shall be sure, never to attain this inward gift, otherwise, than by those outward means; nor can we believe the Doctrine of Christ, without the Introduction of Teachers appointed, and taught by his Holy Spirit. Neither doth if follow, that by this means, one should be necessitated to be an Heretic, because, that there should have been a perpe ●uall Succession of believers, in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in our power, as you argue most weakly; and seeing Protestants teach, that Heresy is a deviation from Scripture, and that it is not in the power of man to conserve Scripture incorrupted, Protestants may be Heretics, whether they will or no, if your objection were of any force. And why do you not make this argument? Men cannot sinne unless they exist, and be in their right wits; But that a man be in his right wits, or exist, is not in his Power (for who can be his own creator?) Therefore, sinning or not sinning depends not on these things. As therefore men may be Heretics, and sinners; because de facto God conserveses Scripture, and preserves men in their being; so, seeing he hath promised to conserve his Church, without error against Faith, and gives every one sufficient grace, to follow her Directions, if they refuse to do so, they become Heretics, by their own freewill, not by any necessity. Your saying (By this reason you should say, as well, that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastor, or King, or Magistrate, or Father that succeeds a bad one) is manifestly impertinent; seeing the Direction of Faith, is not the personal life, but the public Definition, and doctrine of such as God hath appointed to be our Guides, and whom he hath commanded us to obey. 36. Seeing your (N. 39) contains only a heap, or rabble, of demands without telling us, what you hold, I were much to blame, If I would spend time about them; 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 own demands; whereof I must tell you in general, some are ridiculous, some dangerous and tending to confusion, some beg the Question, some contain shrewd insinuations against the necessity of Bishops; some are evidently falls, and all, of no force against us. You ask whether Ch: Ma: in saying the Donatists' Sect was confined to Africa, do not forget himself, and contradict what he said (N: 17.) that they had some of their Sect residing in Rome? But this is a poor contradiction. For, even D. Potter (Pag: 125.) citys S. Austin affirming, that the Donatists held the Church to have 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 expressly affirm it; yet because they were so few, as could not make any considerable number, it may well be said, that their Sect de facto was confined to Africa, as they were wont to say, and as Ch: Ma: must speak, in their sense, concerning them: and he is expressly 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 ubi colligerent non habebant. 37. All that is material in your [N: 40.] hath been answered heretofore, to your small credit. You have 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 err in one Faith? Quid vetisimile est, ut tot ac tantae in unam Fidem erraverint? Which you say should be translated, should err into one Faith. For it is certain, that your obscure expression, should err into one Faith, must signify, that it is not likely so many different Churches agreeing, should err in that Faith, in which they agree, which is according to the clear expression of Ch: Ma: And it is clear, that the reason, why they could not err into one Faith, must be, because error could not consist with one Faith; for if it could, they might err 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 Catholic to herself alone, and Heretical 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 essential part of the Gospel of Christ: Which sentences put together conclude, the Roman Church to want what is essential to a Church, and yet you expressly teach in other parts of your Book, that she errs not in essential or fundamentall points. How will you save 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 essential part of the Gospel? Do you not profess through your whole Book that voluntary error against any revealed truth, is a damnable sin? And what sin can it be except the sin of Heresy? But of this particular, else 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 speech 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 speech be a certain sign of a living man yet want of it is no sure Argument that he is dead) is retorted against yourself. 37. You would draw me in your (N. 42.) to enter upon an unreasonable discourse, wherein you do not so much impugn the Catholic Church, as all Christianity; and you are still like yourself, in despising S. Austin, and saying, that the places alleged out of him by Ch: Ma: (N. 24.) deserve not the name of a proof, and yet S. Austin, (Lib: de Pastorib: Cap: 8.) sayeth in express terms, the thing for which he was alleged, namely, that not all Heretics are spread over the face of the ●arth, but that Faithful people are dispersed through the whole world. And the arguments which you bring to the contrary, are answered by these words of S. Austin in the same place: Not all Heretics are spread over the face of the Earth, and yet there are Heretics spread over the whole face of the earth, some here, some there; yet they are wanting in no place, they know not one an other. One Sect for example in Africa ' a other Heresy in the East, an other in Egypt, an other in Mesopotamia. In divers places they are divers. One Mother Pride hath begot them all, as one Mother the Catholic Church hath brought forth all faithful people dispersed throughout the whole world. No wonder then, if Pride breed Dissension, and Charity union. To this true distinction of S. Austin, we may add, that sometime when the Fathers speak, of the multitude of some particular Sects, they mean of some particular place, or Country, but not comparing those Heretics, with the whole universal Church, diffused through the whole world. You tell us, S. Austin says (Ep. 48. ad Uinc:) the Professors of error surpassed the Number of the Professors of Truth in proportion, as the sands of the Sea do the stars of the Heaven. But I find in that Epistle these words of S. Austin: Fortasse non frustra dictum sit de Semine Abrahae, sicut stellae Coeli, & sicut arena quae est ad oram maris: ut in stellis Coeli pauciores, firmiores, clarioresque intelligantur, in arena autem maritimi Litoris magna multitudo infirmorum atque carnalium: In which words it seems, that S Austin speaks not of Professors of error (as you say) but of perfect and imperfect Catholics; which is nothing to our purpose. 38. Your (N. 43.44.) contain nothing which hath not been answered, or else is of no consideration. You find fault with Ch. Ma: that being to prove Protestants to be guilty of Heresy, 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 Heretics? Aristotle believed there were Intelligences which moved the spheres he believed this with an humane persuasion, and will you make Aristotle an heretic because he believed so? Answer: Changed Ma: having proved Protestant's to be guilty of heresy, and consequently, not capable of salvation, because Heresy is a deadly sin; if every Heresy have also this effect, that it destroys all true supernatural Faith, even of all those points wherein they do not err, and that true supernatural Faith is necessary to salvation, how could Ch. Ma. without prevarication forbear, to infer, that seeing Protestants are proved to be guilty of Heresy, they must be subject to the inseparable effect thereof, which is to be deprived of all supernatural Faith, and so be incapable of Salvation upon a double Title, that is, both for a positive error against Faith, and for want of supernatural infallible Faith, caused by that error? Whatsoever you are pleased to say, yet I believe every one beside yourself, will conceive that Ch: Ma: did not digress, if indeed it be true, that every Heresy destroys all Faith, as he proved it does, but never dreamt, that every Heresy makes the true belief (though only humane) of all other Articles, to be Heresy; or that Aristotle was an Heretic, because he believed only with an humane persuasion, that there were Intelligences which moved the spheres: but if he, or any other, believed all the mysteries of Christian Faith, only with an humane persuasion, as he believed those Intelligences, no good Christian can believe, that such a persuasion were sufficient for salvation; and so your Argument turns against yourself. Neither have you any reason to say, that Ch: Ma: hath disjoined his discourse upon this Point. For it was necessary, that first the grounds should be laid, and the nature of Faith declared, before he could by degrees prove Protestants to be Heretics, and thereby to be deprived of all supernatural Faith, necessary to salvation. 39 Your (N. 45.46.) have been answered in divers occasions. You overlash exorbitantly, when (N. 47.) you say to Ch: Ma: Do you not see and feel, how void of reason, and how full of imprety your sophistry is? And why? Let the Reader judge of the cause. Ch: Ma: sayeth, Every Protestant as I suppose, is persuaded, that his own opinions are true, and that he hath used such means, as are wont to be prescribed for understanding of Scripture, as prayer, conferring of divers Texts &c: This supposition (not affirmation) being premised, that Protestants have used such means as themselves prescribe for interpreting, and yet that they disagree in many importantmatters of Faith, it clearly follows that the means which they prescribe are not certain, nor effectual, seeing they being put in practice, attain not that End for the procuring whereof they were prescribed. From whence will follow this principally intended conclusion, that the only effectual means, to compass that end, must be to acknowledge 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 persuaded, that his opinions are true) must needs be true, but the second is apparently false: I mean, that every Protestant is persuaded, that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture. But that which you collect from these suppositions is clearly inconsequent, and by as good Logic you might conclude, that Logic and Geometry stands upon no certain grounds, because the disagreements of Logicians and Geometricians show, that some of them are deceived. 40. Answer; If every Protestant be not persuaded, that he hath used those means, which are prescribed for understanding 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 persuaded, that his opinions are true. For if he be not persuaded, that he hath used such means, he cannot pretend to be sure that his opinions are true, and then it is clear, 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 certain of any. And, that which Ch: Ma: collects from those suppositions, to be clearly consequent, appears, even by your instances to the contrary, which are retorted; thus: If you suppose men to follow the Rules and Principles of Logic, and Geometry, and yet disagree (and consequently some of them to be deceyved) you must conclude, that Logic, and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds. Now our supposition (for the present) is, that Protestants make use of those means, which they prescribe for understanding Scripture, and yet disagree among themselves (and consequently some of them must be deceived) Therefore we must conclude, that those means are not certain, nor that they have any certain ground, whereon to rely, for understanding 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 use aright all the means they have, for finding the truth in matters of Faith, and men be supposed to proceed according to the true Rules of Reason and men did disagree, we might well infer, that neither Christian Religion, nor Reason, stand upon certain grounds: and the same retortion may be applied to your other instances, But Sr., though you say it is falls, that every Protestant, is persuaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding Scripture; yet it might seem a hard censure in you (who pretend so much charity, the property whereof, you say, is to judge the best) to judge, that of so very many disagreeing Protestants, some have not used the means which they prescribe to themselves for understanding Scripture, and if they have, it being clear by their disagreeing, that some are in an error, it follows, that the means are in themselves defective, uncertain, and insufficient. 41. And in this occasion, I must not omit to declare the Reason why Almighty God, doth not concur with Heretics, to the converting of Nations to Christian Religion; because indeed they might afterward, upon 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 have been deluded, or (to use your own word) tantalized, than converted; and might be tempted, to revolt from Christ, till they could find some Rock, to which God himself hath promised eternal stability. Besides seeing Protestant Religion, cannot be wholly true, as consisting of contrary Sects, if God did ordinarily cooperate with them in order to so supernatural a work, he might seem to give them the credit of true Teachers, and to countenance, and confirm a falsehood, which is impossible for him to do. And even from hence, we may gather à posteriori, that Protestant Religion is not true, seeing God doth not take them for his instruments to convert Nations, or work Miracles. 42. All that you say (N. 48.) hath been answered heretofore at large. To your (N. 49.) whether he who errs against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith (as Ch: Ma: said (N. 29.) Catholic Divines generally reach) I answer. First; That in reason, Protestants ought to make greater account of the Authority of Catholic Divines (besides whom there were no Orthodox Doctors before Luther, and so to deprive them of estimation and authority, cannot be done without prejuduce to the universal and Catholic Church, and all Christianity) than any Catholic, or any prudent man can make of learned Protestants, who in their opposition to Catholics, are contrary to all Christian Churches, before Luther, and write, to maintain such their opposition; whereas Catholic Divines, who wrote before Luther, could not have any purpose to impugn Protestants; yea the disagreement of Protestants among themselves, and agreement with us, against their pretended Brethren, must needs very much diminish their authority: and if they remain with any estimation, or authority, it makes for us, with whom the chiefest among them agree in many, and great points, of Faith. You say; D. Potter alleged not the mere Authority of Pappus and Flacius to prove this disagreement of Catholics among themselves, but proved it with the formal words of Bellarmine, faithfully collected by Pappus. But I pray you, that this collection was faithful, or to the purpose, how doth Dr. Potter prove, otherwise than by taking it upon the credit and Authority of Pappus, seeing the Doctor doth not allege, so much as any one instance in particular? As for the pretended disagreements among Catholics; they can be only in matters disputable, or not defined by the Church, from which definition if any should swerve, he were no Catholic; 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 only make an Addition to his own manifest Impertinences: as your alleging the Example of Brereley is a mere impertinence, it being clear, that he alleges 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 themselves, but as directly agreeing with us, against other Protestants, in the very conclusions: whereof I desire the Reader, for his own good, and full satisfaction, to peruse Brereley in his Advertisement to him that shall answer his treatise, and his preface to the Christian Reader, Catholic, or Protestant. 43. Secondly, Though you are pleased to call it weakness in Ch: Ma: to urge Protestants with the authority of Catholic Divines; yet you can have no pretence to slight, men of their fame, and learning, when they are considered, not as disagreeing from Protestants (nor in a Question controverted between them and us) but are seconded by the chiefest, and learnedst of them, (Protestant's.) For what doth it import Protestants, that Heresy, or infidelity, destroys all Divine Faith, unless they will tacitly confess, or fear, that they are guilty of those crimes? Let us hear the verdict of some principal Protestants. Luther (in Capit: 7. Matth.) sayeth, Heretics, 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 way. For albeit it may be weak and faint: yet it must needs be entire and true. And Epist. ad Albertum: He doth not satisfy, if in other things he confess Christ and his word. For who denieth Christ in one Article or word, denieth him in all, seeing there is one only Christ, the same in all. The Magdeburgians (in Praefat: Centur: 6.) They are Anti-christs', and devils. Beza de puniendis haereticis; They are infidels and Apostates. Mort: (Lib: 1. Apolog. Cap: 7.) Either you must give the name of Catholics to Protestants, or we must deny them the name of Christians. Yourself (Pag: 23. N, 27.) speaking of Uerityes, contained in the undoubted Books of Scripture, say; He that doth not believe all can hardly believe any, neither have we reason to believe he doth so; Which is more than Catholic Divines teach, who affirm, that an heretic may believe some articles of Faith, by an humane opinion, not purely for Divine Revelation; and so you also must understand, that he who doth not believe all that is contained in the undoubted Books of Scripture, can hardly believe any for the Authority of Scripture, but if he believe them, it must be with mixture of some other reason, and so fall fare short of Divine, supernatural, Faith. Wittenbergenses, in Refutat. Ortodox: Consensus: As he who keepeth all the Law, but offendeth in one, is (witness saint james) guilty of all: So who believeth not, one word of Christ, though he seems to believe 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 doctrine, who subverteth it in the least Article. Most truly said Ambrose E Epist:: ad demetriadem; he is out of the number of the Faithful, and lot of Saints, who dissenteth in any point from the Catholic Truth. Calvin (Ephes: 4. V 5.) upon that: One God, one Faith, writeth thus: As often as thou readest the word, one, understand it put emphatically, as if he had said, 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. Whereupon Faith is termed an entire copulative. As I said of your words, so I say of these, that they contain more than Catholics affirm, and to give them a true sense, they must be understood, 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 wholly by the least detraction, and consequently, it is no true Church, no not visible, in which entire Faith is not kept in public profession. 44. The same is the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers: Tertullian (de praescrip: Cap: 2.) sayeth: Heresies are to destroy Faith, and bring everlasting death. And (Cap 37.) If they be heretics, they can be no Christians. S. Cyprian (Epist: 73.) sayeth, that both by the testimony of the Gospel and Apostle, Heretics are called Anti-christs. S. Austin, (Enchirid: Cap: 5.) Christ, in name only, is found with any Heretics. S. Chrysostom cited by Changed Ma: (N. 33. in Galat 17.) sayeth, that the least error in matter of Faith, destroyeth Faith. Let them hear (saith this holy Father) what S. Paul saith: Namely that they who brought in some small error had overthrown the Gospel. For, to show how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole, he said, that the Gospel was subverted. For as he who eclipse a little of the stamp from the king's money, makes the whole piece of no value: so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound Faith, is wholly corrupted. But enough of this. You do but cavil, and yourself know you do so, in saying to Ch: Ma: that there is not one Catholic Divine, who delivers for true Doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set down, That any error against any one revealed truth destroys all divine Faith. For you cannot be ignorant, that when this Question is propounded by Divines, it is necessarily understood, of culpable error; otherwise it could be no Question. And whereas you say, There is not one Catholic Divine; who delivers etc. Yourself did read 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 retain Faith of other Articles; in his Conclusion he sayeth: It is impossible, that Faith, even informed (or Faith without Charity) remain in him, who doth not believe some one Article of Faith, although he confess all the rest to be true. What say you to this? Is not S. Thomas, one Catholic Divine, or is he not, one, instar omnium? And yet he both proposes, and answers this Question, supposing, not expressing, that he speaks of culpable error; and afterward he speaks expressly of Heretics, as also Ch: Ma: in this very Number, expressly specifies Protestants, whom you know we believe to err culpably, against many revealed Truths. You go forward, and speak to Ch: Ma: in this manner: They (Catholic Divines) all require (not yourself excepted) that this truth must not only be revealed, but revealed publicly, and (all things considered) sufficiently propounded, to the erring party, to be one of those, which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe. But you are more bold, than well advised, in taking upon you to know, what all Catholic Divines hold and you are even ridiculous, in telling Changed Ma: what his opinion is. I beseech you produce any one Catholic Divine teaching, that all Divines hold that the error which destroys all divine Faith, must be revealed publicly. Who is ignorant, that many great Divines teach, that he were properly an Heretic, who should reject, or disbelieve a private Divine Revelation sufficiently known to be such, by never so secret means? Do not yourself here cite Estius (whom you style one of the most rational and profound Doctors of our Church) saying: It is impertinent to Faith, by what means we believe the prime verity. For many of the Ancients, as Adam, Abraham, Melchisedeck, job, receyved the Faith by special 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 (Catholic Divines) require, that this Truth be one of those which God under pain of Damnation commands all men to believe. For, all Catholic Divines, agree, that it is Heresy, to deny any revealed truth proposed by the Church, though other wise it be not commanded to be believed; and you do not only teach, through your whole Book, that it is damnable, to disbelieve any Truth sufficiciently propounded as revealed by God, but you say further, that whatsoever, one is obliged, not to disbelieve, at any time, at the same time, he is oblged, to believe it, which latter part though it be false, (as I have showed heretofore) yet it shows, that you must affirm, that God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe (positively and explicitly) all truths sufficiently propounded as revealed by God: so that this your saying, is not only confused, but false, in the opinion of Catholic Divines, and much more in your opinion. 45. You say Thomas Aquinas vainly supposeth against reason and experience, that by the commission of any deadly sin, the Habit of Charity is quite extirpated. But against this proud Pelagian conceit of yours, I have proved in the Introduction, that Charity being a supernatural Habit, infused only by the Holy Ghost, and not acquired by any natural Acts, cannot be known by humane experience, to be present or absent; and being a love of God above all things, cannot possibly consist with any least deadly sin. I desire the Reader to see of this matter S. Thomas, (2. 2. Q. 24. a 12. Corp:) where he citys S. Aug: saying: Quòd homo Deo sibi praesente illuminatur, absent 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 up for an Achilles, and think like the Gorgon's head it will turn us all into stone, and insult upon Dr. Potter as if he durst not come near it, yet in very truth, having considered it well, I find it a serious, grave, prolix, and profound nothing. I could answer it in a word, by telling you, that it begs without all proof or colour of proof, the main Question between us that the infallibility of your Church is either the formal motive, or rule, or a necessary condition of Faith: which you know we flatly deny, and all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for foundation. 47. Answer: What Reader will not conceive out of your words, that Ch. Ma. had used some such vain brag, as you express by Achilles, Gorgon's head, insulting &c: Whereas he without any, evenleast commendation, says positively, that S. Thomas proves his conclusion, first by a parity with Charity, which is destroyed by every deadly sin, and then by a farther reason, which there he sets down, at large in the words of that holy Saint (2. 2. Q. 5. A. 3.) and is comprised in this Sum (Ad 2.) A man doth believe all the articles of faith for one and the selfsame reason, to wit, for the prime verity proposed to us in the Scripture, understood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church: and therefore whosoever falls from this reason or motive, is totally deprived of Faith. Your pride is intolerable, in despising the Reason of S. Thomas, as a serious, grave, prolix nothing; and your saying is ridiculous, that he begs the main Question between us, about the infallibility of the Church. For how could he beg that Question, which when he wrote, was granted, and taught, by all Divines? But you do not understand the force of his Argument, which consists in this; that if one assent to one Object, for some motive or Reason, and assent not to another, for which there is the same motive or reason, it appears that he Assents to this other, not for that motive common to both, but for some other particular Reason. Now, though S. Thomas specify the authority of the Church, because, de facto she is the proposer of divive Truths, yet his argument is the same, though it be applied to Scripture. And therefore the same holy Doctor (1. Part. Q. 1. A. 8. Ad 2.) without mentioning the Church, sayeth: Innititur sides nostra revelationi Apostolis & Prophetis factae qui Canonicos Libros scripserunt: and we have heard yourself saying (Pag: 23.) He that doth not believe all the undoubted parts of the undoubted Books of Scripture, can hardly believe any, neither have were ason to believe he doth so. Yea D. Lawd (P. 344.) sayeth expressly: We believe all the Articles of Christian Faith, for the same formal reason in all, namely, because they are revealed from and by God, and sufficiently applied in his word, an by his Church's Ministration. 48. To this answer, which I have confuted, you add, to use your words, a large confutation of this vain fancy out of Estius, upon (3. sen. 23. dist. § 13. But Estius is so fare from saying the Doctrine of S. Thomas, to be a vain fancy, that he sayeth: The Question is on both sides by the Doctors 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, have Divine supernatural Faith, which is absolutely necessary to salvation, necessitate medij. Besides, his last express words show that the Faith which remains in an Heretic, is not sufficient for salvation, and therefore Protestants and all Heretics, 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: ut 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 means we believe the prime Uerity. For although now the ordinary means be the Testimony and preaching of the Church, yet it is certain that by other means, faith hath been given heretofore and is given still. This discourse, I say doth not confute the Argument of S. Thomas, being understood, as I declared, formally; that whosoever disbelieves any article sufficiently propounded as a divine Truth, the same man cannot believe an other sufficiently propounded to him by the same means, whatsoever that means 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 sin, Estius doth not answer, and I am sure he would have been far from saying, as you do that by the commission of any deadly sin the habit of Charity is not quite extirpated. And this Argument is stronger, than perhaps appears 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 therefore as Charity doth so love God above all things that it cannot stand with any sin, whereby God is grievously offended, so we 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 essential to Charity, as long as it exists, to overcome all temptations against the Love of God; so Faith must of its own nature, beat down, and reject all error, against the Divine Testimony, or Revelation, that both, for will, and understanding, we may say: Nun Deo subjecta erit anima mea? which entire submission, and subjection, is evidently more necessary in Faith, than in Charity, against which some sins may be venial, whereas every error against any truth, sufficiently propounded as revealed by God, is a deadly sin nor can be excused, ob parvitatem materiae. 50. You conclude and say to Ch. Ma. Your Corollaries drawn from it (the Doctrine of S. Thomas) That every error against Faith involves opposition against God's testimony, That Protestants have no Faith no certainty, and that you have all Faith, must together with it fall to the ground. Which words are either nonsense, or evidently false. For who ever denied (not yourself excepted) that every error against Faith involves an opposition against God's testimony, which is the very essence, of error against Faith, that is, of Heresy? 51. Your (N. 50.51.52.) have been answered heretofore; and are answered by this one consideration; That your Faith is not raised above the probable motives or Arguments of Credibility, which being evident, your kind of Faith, must be evident: but our Catholic Faith, is an assent above the said motives, and is certain, though not evident, as I have declared else where: and by this means your imitation of the Argument of Ch: Ma: (to prove that the pretended faith of Protestants implied not obscurity) falls to the ground, because we believe with a greater certainty, than is derived from the sole motives of credibility: so that your Faith must have evidence, but cannot have certainty: The Faith of Protestants, who pretended to be assured, what Books be Canonical, by the private spirit, must be certain and evident (and consequently not obscure) and Calvin (Lib: Institut: Cap: 7. Sect: 2.) sayeth, that by the spirit men may discern true Scripture, as we discern lucem à tenebris, album à nigro, suave ab amaro, light from darkness, white from black, sweet from sour: And so the Faith of Catholics only remains both certain and obscure, as Christian Faith ought to be. 52. Your (N. 53.54.55.) have been either answered already, or else contain mere say, without any proof. That the Jews before our Saviour's time, conserved the Scripture, is no wonder, since at that time 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 have convinced them, as shameless falsaries. But what hath this to do with that Church, which was the universal Church of Christ, before Luther; and if it be fallible, and so could have been permitted to corrupt Scripture, you can at this time have no certainty of the Bible? That Luther opposed the Roman Church appears by what I said 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 itself. 53. You tell us (N. 56.) that the Bible only is the Religion of Protestants. Of this we have said enough heretofore. Now I will only put you in mind; First; that this cannot agree with your Doctrine, that Scripture is not a material object of Faith, nor which men are obliged to believe. 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 believe, it follows, that Protestants have no Religion, or Point of Faith at all. Secondly; We have heard you say (Pag: 287. N. 82.) that some Protestants took for the model, or Idea of their Reformation, not Scripture only, but also the Decrees of Counsels, and the Writings of the Fathers of the first five Ages. Thirdly; you say; Whatsoever else they (Protestants) believe 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 own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most Schismatical presumption. It is strange, that the Approbators of your Book, and other Protestants, did not see a thing very evident; That in these words, you declare Protestant pretended Bishops, and the Church of England, to have been guilty of most high and most Schismatical presumption, for requiring the belief of the 39 Articles, some of which you believe, neither to be contained in Scripture, nor to be the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, but to be falls, and repugnant to it. So that we have reason, more and more, to be even amazed, that such a Book, could at such a time be published. 54. Your [N. 57) and the rest till your (N. 72.) inclusiuè, have been answered in different occasions, respectiuè. Unfortunate man! Who will not compassionate your disorder of mind, and pen, when (N. 66.) you are not ashamed to say of Catholics? It is too too apparent, that your Church hath got and still maintains her authority over men's 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 wars, by perfecutions, by Massacres, by Treasons, by Rebellions; in short, by all manner of carnal means whether violent or fraudulent. If Luther found the Roman Church, and such as were united with her, (that is all Orthodox Christian Churches) in such a state as you describe, what a scandal must it needs have been to Jews, 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 appear by reading Ch: Ma: here (N. 32.) and I observe that you confess, with Luther, that in the Papacy are many good things, that have come from them to us; and then why do you always deny, that you receive Scripture from us, which is one of those many good things that have come from us to you, as Luther expressly confesses? 56. In your (N. 74.) you involve, and make things seem obscure, which are very clear. You cite Ch. Ma. as if he said, in general, certainty and prudence are certain grounds, of supernaturality, which is evidently falls: it being manifest, that some natural knowledge, may be certain and prudent. You say also, that Ch: Ma: makes persuasion and opinion all one. And why? because he sayeth the Faith of Protestants is but an human persuasion or opinion; as if you should have said, 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 certain, divine, assent; call it otherwise what you please. You ask; how we can assure you, that our Faith is not our persuasion, or opinion, that our Church's doctrine is true? Or if you grant it your persuasion, why is it not the persuasion of men, and in respect of the subject of it, an humane persuasion! You desire also to know, what sense there is in pretending that our persuasion is, not inregard of the object only and cause of it, but in nature and essence of it supernatural? 57 Answer; we believe with certainty, that the Church's doctrine is true, because such our belief depends upon infallible and certain grounds, as hath been showed heretofore: and we are certain that every Act of Faith necessary for salvation, is supernatural in essence, not by sensible experience, and natural reason, on which you are still harping, but by infallible principles of Faith; because the particular assistance of the Holy Ghost is universally, and in all occasions, necessary for us to believe (as I proved in the Introduction) which demonstrates, that the essence of Faith is supernatural. Your saying; (that if it be our persuasion, why is it not the persuasion of men, and in respect of the subject of it, an humane persuasion?) deserves no answer. Is not even the Beatifical vision, in men, as in the subject thereof? And yet I hope you will not call it, a mere humane Act, and much less an humane persuasion: besides our Faith being absolutely certain, cannot be called, only a persuasion. 58. Your (N. 75.) contains nothing which is not answered by former Grounds; and in particular by your own Doctrine, that every culpable error, against any revealed truth is damnable, yea and repugnant to some fundamental necessary Article; from whence it must follow, that of two dissenting in revealed Truths, he who culpably errs, sins damnably, and cannot be saved, without repentance. Your gloss of S. chrysostom is plainly against his words; seeing he speaks expressly of small errors, which he sayeth destroy all Faith; as we have heard the famous Protestant Sclusselburg saying of this very place of S. chrysostom; Most truly wrote Chrsiostome in 1. Galat. He corrupteth, the whole Doctrine, who subverteth it in the least article. CHAP: XVI. THE ANSWER TO HIS SEAVENTH CHAPTER? That Protestants are not bound by the CHARITY WHICH THEY OWN TO THEMSELVES to reunite themselves to the ROMAN CHURCH. 1. I May well begin my Answer to this Chapter, with your own 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 look for great store of uningenuous dealing from you, the very first words you speak of him, uz. (That the first four Paragraphs of his seaventh Chapter, are wholly spent in an unecessary introduction unto 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 wisdom and Charity to himself, is to take the safest way to his eternal Salvation) being a most and immodest imputation. For, the first three Paragraphs of Ch: Ma: are employed in delivering such Doctrines, as Divines esteem necessary to be known, and for that cause treat of them at large; and I believe if the Reader peruse those paragraphs, he will Judge them not unnecessary; and (which here is chief considered) it is very untrue, that they are spent to prove; that every man in wisdom, and Charity to himself, is to take the safest way to his eternal Salvation, which Ch: Ma: never affirmed, and is in itself evidently false: Otherwise every one were obliged in all occasions to embrace the best, and not be content with that which is good; to live according to the Evangelicall Counsels, and not judge the keeping of the commandments to be sufficient for salvation; which were to turn all Counsels (or things not of obligation in themselves) to commands, and could produce only scruples, perplexities, and perhaps might end in despair. 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 sin, that we proceed prudently, and by the conduct of some probable opinion, maturely weighed, and approved by men of virtue, learning, and wisdom. Neither are we always obliged to follow the most strict and severe, or secure part, as long as the Doctrine which we embrace, proceeds upon such reasons, as may warrant it to be truly probable, and prudent, though the contrary part want not also probable grounds. For, in humane affairs and discourse, evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. But when we treat not precisely of avoiding 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 probability prove falc, I shall not probably, but certainly come short of salvation. Nay in such case▪ I shall incur a new sin against the virtue of Charity to wards myself, which obligeth every one not to expose his soul to the hazard of eternal perdition, when it is in his power, with the assisstance of God's Grace, to make the matter sure. Thus said Changed Ma: which may be confirmed out of S. Austin (Lib. 1. de Baptismo Cap. 3.) graviter peccaret in rebus ad salutem animae pertinentibus, vel eo solo quod certis in certa praeponeret. He speaks of Baptism, which the world knows he held to be necessary to salvation. And what say you now? Is this to say universally, 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 part, as shall be further explicated hereafter. 2. I desire the Reader so see what Ch: Ma: sayeth (N. 7.8.9.10, 11.) and he will find you could not answer so briefly, as (N. 3.) you pretend you could do. For I have proved that by your own confession we err not fundamentally, and you grant that Protestants err damnably (which we deny of Catholics) therefore we are more safe than you, seeing both of us consent, that you err damnably, and we absolutely deny that we do so. 3. I was glad to hear you confess perforce (N. 2.) that in the Arguments, which Ch: Ma: delivers (N. 12.) there is something that has some probability to persuade some Protestants to forsake some of their opinions, or others to leave their commumion. For this is to grant, that according to a probable, and consequently a prudent opinion, some Protestants, your pretended Brethren, are Heretics, and that the rest, sin grievously, in not forsaking the communion of those other; which, upon the matter, is to yield, that all Protestants (upon 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 prove Protestants in state of sin while they remain separate from the Roman Church there is not one word or syllable (in that N. 12.) seeing if they forsake those opinions, eo ipso, they come to agree therein with the Roman Church; and if they persist in their errors, 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 soul is dear, will not speedily return to that Church, from which all of them departed, whatsoever you may speculate, or fancy to the contrary. As for your instance, that Catholics differ about the Doctrine of Perdetermination, or absolute Election; it is not to the purpose; seeing all Catholics, profess to hold them not otherwise, than as they may consist with freewill, which those Protestants of whom Ch. Ma. speaks deny, and therefore his Inferences are of force against Protestants, not against Catholics. There is no doubt, but that the consequences of men's opinions, may, and will, be imputed to them, when they might see them, if it were not for some fault of their own, 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 prove that due order is to be observed in any thing much more in Charity, seeing all Divines treating of Charity propose this Question: and in particular S. Thomas (2.2 Q. 26. Art: 1.) asks expressly, Vtrum in charitate sit ordo; and for proof thereof he alleges the same Text (Cant: 1.) which Ch: Ma: alleges, Ordinavit in me Charitatem; and yet, you with your wont confidence, say; It if stood in need of proof, I fear 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 alleged by you, why we ought to love one object more than an other, because one thing participates the Divine Goodness more than an other, is fantastical, and repugnant to what you say presently after. For by this Rule no man should love himself more than all the world; Unless he were first vainly persuaded that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness then all the world. But the true reason why one thing ought to be loved more than an other is, because one thing is better than another, or because it is better to us, or because God Commands us to do so, or because God himself does so, and we are to conform 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: fantastical, it being nothing different from that which S. Thomas, in the place alleged, assigns, and all his Commentators follow: and which is strange, you yourself give the same, as we shall see instantly. Your error arises, from ignorance, of a double Order in Charity, Physical, and moral. 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 upon us to love things in that manner and order, as he hath appointed: and therefore, although we cannot love ourselves, more than all the world, by the Physical order of which we spoke, as if we did conceive ourselves to be of our own nature, more perfect than all Creatures; yet we are obliged by the moral order, or obligation, which God hath imposed, to prefer the spiritual good of our own soul, before the whole world: and so your objection appears very vain, and must be answered by yourself, who give 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 said, you must answer your own Objection; that by this rule no man should love himself more than all the world, unless he were first vainly persuaded, that he doth more participate the Divine Goodness, than all the world. In your other reason, (because one thing is better to us, than an other) you forget that we speak of Charity, not of Hope, which respects a thing, as good to us, and therefore in this reason, you pass from one virtue to an other, and give a reason nothing to our present purpose. In your last reason (because God himself does so, and we are to conform our affections to the will of God) you either speak nonsense, or else you say the same which Ch: Ma: said, and which you were pleased to call a fantastical reason. For God loves things as they are in themselves, or as one thing is better than 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 fantastical, yet it is the same with your own first reason and with this last) and therefore to conform our affections to the will of God, is no other reason, than that which you call fantastical. To these absurdities your pride brings you! 7. 3. You say; It is not true, that all Objects which we believe, do equally participate the Divine Testimony or Revelation. But you ought to be ashamed to conceal the immediately following words of Ch: Ma: which declare the matter most evidently. For (saith he) For Divine Testimony, or Revelation, we believe a like all things propounded for such. For it is as impossible for God, to speak an untruth, in a small, as in a great matter. Is not this true? Is not the contrary, plain 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; Changed Ma: speaks in the phrase of the holy Scripture, and spiritual men, who, to show the ardent love they bear to God, and deep complacence they take in the Perfections, and Attributes, which they know he enjoys, declare their affection, by wishing them to him; as he in the Panegyric could say to his Emperor, etiam praesens desideraris. Desire in our soul, is like to hunger and thirst in our body; and yet we read (Eccl. 24.29.) Qui edunt me, adhuc esurient; & qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient. S. Thomas (1.2 Q. 33. art. 2.) proposes this Question; utrum 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 possessed! Which he declares 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. Upon which words Cornelius à Lapide sayeth devoutely; Angeli in Spiritum Sanctum prospicere desiderant, id est, desideranter & cupidè prospiciunt, desiderando satiantur, & satiando desiderant; and citys to the same purpose these elegant words of S. Gregory (18. Moral. 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 labour, 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, ut 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 prefer the spiritual good of the whole world before his own soul: in saying this you seem to me to condemn 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 alleged by you in confirmation of your saying, what doth it avail a man, if he gain the whole world, and sustain the damage of his own soul? 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 Lawful for a man to forgo and part with his own particular profit, to procure the universal, spiritual, and eternal benefit of other? 11. Answer: I must truly affirm, that all the difficulty I can have in confuting you, is to conjecture, what you would have, or how to reconcile your Contradictions. Ch: Ma: said; In things necessary to salvation, no man ought in any case, to prefer the spiritual good of others, before his own soul. And is not this evidently true? Hath not God committed to every man the care of his own soul, and commanded him not to damn it for all eternity? And have we not heard you saying, (N. 5.) that the true Reason why one thing ought to be loved more than an other is because God commands us so do so No man can be damned, or forfeit his salvation, except by sin; and I hope you will not say, it is lawful to sin, which were to say, it were a sin, and yet were no sin. Even in this place, to the saying of Ch: Ma: It is directly against Charity to ourselves, to adventure the omitting of any means 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 less dangerous. I have proved above, 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 virtue of Charity to ourselves, it must be a sin, and therefore not to be committed in any case, for any respect, of the temporal, or spiritual 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 spiritual good of the whole world before his own soul. In alleging that Text of S. Paul, you do as Heretics are wont to do, impugning clear 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 serve your turn, in this sense only, that S. Paul, for the good of others, did heartily, 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, seeing it must imply, that S. Paul, did effectually desire to commit a deadly sin, 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 seen in Cornelius à Lapide. For the present, it is sufficient to have proved, that it is very ill applied by you: and (which may seem strange) though here you say 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 (Errors) might be composed, I do heartily wish, that the cement were made of my dearest 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.) seeing one cannot lose his soul except by deadly sin, and our Saviour in that Chapter doth expressly teach us to carry our cross, lest otherwise, we incur eternal damnation, and I hope you will not deny cut that we are obliged to avoid sin, and Hell: nor that our Saviour persuaded to that which was both profitable and best. Indeed your boldness in interpreting Scripture is intolerable. I will end this Number, with observing; First; your little fervour and constancy in your own Faith; which you express in your next (N. 6.) in these words: Sure I am, for my part, that I have done my true endeavour to find it true, (that obedience is due to the Roman Church) and am still willing to do so. For is it possible that after so many changes, and even after the writing of your Book, you are yet ready to leave Protestancy? What account ought others to make of your Book, since yourself are so willing to abjure it? Secondly; I must observe your charity towards us Catholics, of whom in the close of this (N. 6.) you say: To, live and die in it (the Roman Church) is as dangerous as to shoot a gulf which though some good ignorant souls may do and escape, yet it may well be feared that not one in a hundred but miscarries. And now who can accuse us, for want of Charity toward Protestants, since you, a chosen champion for them, are so uncharitable towards us, yea towards many of the chiefest Protestants, who, as I have often said, agree with us, against their other pretended Brethren? 12. In your (N. 7.) there is no difficulty requiring Answer: yet I will not wholly omit it. I deny, that your ignorance, of being obliged to obey the Roman Church can be probable, as I have proved heretofore. And besides this, you should consider, that seeing even according to your own confession, the ministry 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 attain that which is absolutely necessary to salvation, and consequently, the obligation, we have, 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: Whereas 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, Baptism in Act for Children, and in desire for those who are come to the use of Reason and the Sacrament of confession, for those who have committed mortal sin: In these words you seem to me to deliver a strange Pardox viZ. That Faith, and Baptism and confession are not therefore necessary for us, because God appointed them, but are therefore appointed by God because they were necessary for us, 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! 14. Answer: First; although the words of Ch: Ma: had been the same, which you set down, 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 weak, as not to perceive it. Suppose, I say, Ch: Ma: had said as you allege 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 Changed Ma: say, as you would have him? Faith etc. are not therefore necessary for us, because God appointed them, but are therefore appointed by God, because they were necessary for us antecedently 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, and making him say absurdly; Other things are appointed (by God) because they were necessary for us, antecedently to his appointment. But your malice, will be yet more patent by setting down the very words of Ch: Ma: which are these (N. 3.) Some other things are said to be necessary to salvation necessitate medij; because they are means 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 attain our End of eternal salvation, in so strict a manner, that it were presumption to hope for salvation without them. And as the former means 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 special precept (mark special precept) concerning them; yet supposing they be once appointed as means absolutely necessary to salvation, there cannot but rise an obligation of procuring to have them, in virtue of that universal precept of Charity, which obligeth every man to procure the salvation of his own soul. These words of Ch: Ma: are so clear and true, that you may blush, for having endeavoured to put upon them, any such absurd sense, or paradox, as we have heard you express. The remainder of this Number about the Faith, and Baptism 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 Catholic Writers. 15. Your (N. 8.) lays a heavy charge upon Ch: Ma:, who, you say, delivers this false and wicked Doctrine, that for the procuring our own salvation we are always bound under pain of mortal sin to take the safest way, but for avoiding sin we are not bound to do so, but may follow the opinion of any probable doctors, though the contrary may be certainly free from sin, and theirs doubtful. 16. But you plainly falsify the words and meaning of Ch: Ma:, as appears by what I cited above out of his (N. 4.) for he never affirms, that for the procuring our own salvation we are always bound under pain of mortal sin to take the safest way (which is evidently false, as I shown above) but that for avoiding sin we are not bound to do so, but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors, though the contrary may be certainly free from sin, and theirs be doubtful: Whereas he speaks not of a doubtful conscience (which to follow, is always a sin) but of a truly probable, and prudent opinion, which whosoever follows, shall not only probably, but certainly avoid sin; (as it is not merely probable, but certain, that from probable premises, a probable conclusion must follow) and sin according to the Doctrine of Ch: Ma: is always to be avoided; though no man can deny, but that, to avoid sin, more certainty must be had in some things, than in other, according to the quality of them; as, for example, one is obliged under sin, to use greater diligence for attaining the knowledge of fundamental, than unfundamentall points of Faith; and in general no man of discretion can deny that more certainty is to be sought in the choice of the true Faith, and Religion, then in a suit of Law, or deliberation whether some positive Law oblige or no; or other cases disputable on both sides, and not touching upon any thing, absolutely, and indispensably necessary to salvation: and so still it is true, that we must avoid sin to the uttermost of our power, and this (if we speak of deadly sin) 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 under pain of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any? But, by your leave, in this you show great ignorance; not distinguishing between a command of a thing, which is not appointed by God, as a means, absolutely necessary to salvation; and of a thing, which is appointed as simply necessary, as u.g. true Faith, Religion, Repentance of sins &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 cavil? The rest of this Number, tastes of nothing but gall, and bitterness, and is such, as if you were now alive, you would have wished unwritten. Seeing our salvation, is either endangered, or secured, according to the proportion, that we are in danger of sin, or secured from it, with what consequence, can you so hypocrytically talk, of taking always the absolutely safest way, for avoiding all sin, and yet teach, that men are not always obliged to take the safest means for salvation, especially since you also teach, that to avoid sin to the uttermost of our power is a necessary means of salvation? Neither do you consider, that while you pretend to teach, that for avoiding sin, it is not sufficient to follow a truly probable, and prudent opinion, you do much more confirm, the chief Purpose, and Intent of Cha: Ma: which was to prove, that in things absolutely, and indispensably, necessary to salvation, men are obliged to seek and embrace the safer patte; and in the mean time, I pray you, see if by your Divinity, you can persuade all litigants to part with their goods (though they prudently and probably Judge they maintain a just cause) because, forsooth, it is safer to yield, than overcome, seeing it is not impossible but the Adversary may be in the right. And though, here you talk magnificently, of the necessity men have to avoid sin to the uttermost of their power, as a necessary means of salvation, yet (Pag: 19 N. 26.) you were content to say: I am verily persuaded, that God will not impute errors to them as sins who use such a measure of industry in finding truth, as humane prudence, and ordinary discretion (their abilities and opportunities, their distractions and hindrances, and all other things considered) shall advise them, in a matter of such consequence. last; who will not wonder, to see you so much depress Probability, in moral cases, seeing you teach, that even Christian Faith, upon which salvation depends, doth not exceed Probability? 17. Your (N. 9.10.11.12.13.14.15.) are answered out of grounds laid heretofore: And in particular that Cha: Ma: (N. 5.) said very truly, that seeing all Protestants pretend the like certainty, and go upon the same grounds, and have the same Rules for interpreting Scripture, and yet cannot agree, it is a sign, that their very Rules, and grounds, are uncertain, and insufficient to settle an Act of Faith; as I declared above; and if this could truly be said of Protestants, and Papists; of all Christians; of all Religions; of all Reason; it is clear, that they could not truly pretend to any certainty. But, God be ever blessed for it, we Catholics have Rules, and an infallible Authority, the Church, most able to erect, a certain, infallible belief. With what conscience can you say, that Arcudius acknowledges, that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to infants, and esteemed necessary, or at least profitable for them? For this disjunctive, (necessary, or at least profitable) may signify, that Arcudius' doubts whether it were not esteemed necessary, which never came to his thoughts. Yea he proves expressly and largely that it is not necessary. We grant, that it might be profitable to infants, by producing Grace in their souls, but, it being not necessary, the Church for just causes, may think fit, not to administer it to them. Your talking of an humane Law, obliging men to confess their secret sins, and even sinful thoughts, will. I believe rather cause laughter, than any belief, that such a Law could oblige; and therefore seeing you do not deny, but that the Protestant Centurie Writers, alleged by Cha: Ma: (N. 5.) acknowledge, that in the times of Cyprian, and Tertullian, private confession even of Thought was used, and commanded, and thought necessary, we must infer, that it was held necessary, as commanded by God; yea, seeing you say, it might be then commanded, and being commanded be thought necessary, shows that you dare not deny, but that private, or auricular Confession, was used, as a thing commanded, even in those primitive Ages. You know the story of the Protestants in Germany, who finding by experience, the huge inconveniences, that accompanied the want of Confession, supplicated the Emperor, that he would command it by some Law; but were deservedly rejected with scorn, 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 believe not, that true Priests have power to absolve from sin; and if they had, yet Protestant's 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, upon what hath been handled in other places, and need no Answer here. How little hope of salvation Protestants can conceive from the Doctrine of Cha: Ma: and how impossible it is for them to repent, and not relinquish their errors, hath been showed at large heretofore 19 Though your (N. 19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.) contain no new difficulty, yet I answer them briefly by these considerations; that S. Austin, and other Catholics, never granted that the Donatists had true Divine Faith, but only, that they believing divers, or most, of the Truths, which Catholics believed, had the same Faith or Belief materially; as the Jews believe many Truths, contained in the Old Testament, which Christians believe, and yet cannot be said to have true supernatural saving Faith; that you are very ignorant of Catholic Divinity, if you conceive (as by your words it seems you do) that we hold an Heretical, or Schismatical Bishop, not to administer validè (though illicitè) such Sacraments as depend only upon Potestas Ordinis; and therefore you say vainly 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 have said more, than the words of S. Austin in the margin (upon which the Doctor grounds himself) did express, which was only Baptism, not salvation, whatsoever otherwise the Donatists held, against the salvation of Catholics: That Dr: Potters words, that Protestants cut us not of from the hope of salvation, and therefore are excused from Schism, have been considered heretofore, and your defence of them confuted: That whosoever reads the (N. 8. and 9) of Cham Ma: will find, that your answer is in no wise satisfactory, consisting merely of Points, which you know we deny, our Argument being grounded upon the Confession of the most, and best learned Protestants, who deny not salvation to us, which we cannot yield 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 lawful, an Heresy, after the matter was declared by the Church: And concerning S. Cyprian; see what hath been said heretofore, and also by Cha: Ma: (Part: 2. Chap 4. N. 4.) which you were willing to conceal. In your (N. 27.) you say, (as S. Austin says, that Catholics approve the Doctrine of Donatists, but abhor their Heresy of Rebaptisation, &c:) But you should say (in stead, of Doctrine) Baptism, as Cha: Ma: hath it. For how can S. Austin approve the Doctrine of Donatists, and yet hold that they taught an Heresy, of Rebaptisation? 20. In your (N. 29.) you say to Cha: Ma: I conceive, you were led into error;, by mistaking a supposition of a confession, for a confession; a Rhetorical concession of the Doctors, for a positive assertion. He says indeed of your errors, Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they profess, ye● for us to profess what we believe 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 err in points not fundamental, yet you may not separate from it: Or, though we do err ●in believing Christ really present, yet our error frees us from Idolatry: or, as if a Protestant should say, Though you do not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host, yet being uncertain of the Priest's intention to consecrate, at least you expose yourself to the danger of it: I presume you would not think it fairly done, if any man should interpret either this last speech as an acknowledgement, that you do not commit idolatry, or the former as confessions, that you do err in points not fundamental, that you do err in believing the real presence. And therefore you ought not so to have mistaken D. Potter's words, as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not damnable, when he says no more but this, Though they be so, or, suppose or put the case they be so, yet being errors, we that know them may not profess the to be divine truths. 21. Answer: is It possible that a man should speak so correctingly, and magisterially as you do in this place, and yet be so palpably mistaken, as you are? you say Dr. Potter says of our errors, Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they profess, yet for us to profess &c. (upon which words you ground your whole discourse) and yet both you, and the Doctor, disclaim 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 us the fault of the Print, for the words of Dr. Potter, and will needs have Changed Ma: partaker of your gross mistake, in a point upon which you say a great part of his Book is grounded. Now, than the print being corrected, in this manner, (though in the issue they be not damnable to them which believe as they profess) I beseech you, doth not (though) signify that indeed they are not damnable to them, which believe as they profess? And is not this the constant doctrine of Dr. Potter and yourself, that Catholics who in simplicity of hart believe as they profess, may be saved? And therefore your own correction, and this very place of the Doctor so corrected, returns upon yourself, and proves that he spoke not as upon a supposition of a confession, but upon a confession, concession, and positive assertion, and that you should have understood it so, though it had been as He and you cite it (though of themselves they be not damnable.) And who is ignorant, That the word (though) joined with a verb of the present tense implies a thing existent in truth; and if you will express only a supposition, you must use an other Tense, and say, though your errors were not damnable in themselves, yet &c:, or though your errors were supposed not to be damnable &c: and your declaring (Though they be so) by (suppose, or put the case they be so) is against the common sense, of all that understand English. Neither will any Catholic say; though the Church err in points not fundamental, yet you may not separate from her: but, though the Church did err in points not fundamental, or suppose the Church did err in such points, yet you may not separate from her. For between the Present, and Preterimperfecttense, in our case there is as great difference, as between a positive Affirmation, and a mere supposition, which as Philosophers speak nihil ponit in esse. The like I say of your other example, though we do err in believing Christ really present yet that whosoever did speak in that manner, could not be excused from denying the rest presence; and the same is evident in your other examples, which therefore still return against yourself. If one should say; though Christian Religion be superstitious and falls, yet many Christian men lead a moral life, would any Christian take such a speech, in any other sense, than that Christian Religion is falls? Or if one should say; Though Mr. Chilling worth deny the blessed Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, original sin, &c: yet he pretends to be a Protestant, and to defend their cause against Ch: Ma:; who would not understand that speech, 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 knave, and my enemy, yet I will pray for the; were this a mere supposition? And here it may seem some what strange, that the Doctor both in the first and second Edition of his Book, should have (though of themselves they be not damnable) and you also in your first Edition (for I have not the second, and therefore cannot examine it) should have the same (yea and ground your discourse against Ch: Ma: upon it) and yet in the correction of the Errata, both of you have (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 errors are not damnable of themselves, and yet upon further advice, finding this confession also, disadvantageous, you though best to turn (of themselves) into (in the issue:) But the truth is, that in these matters of damnable, fundamental, not fundamental errors; of the infallibility of the universal Church; of the nature of Heresy, and the like; Protestants have no settled grounds, but must say, and unsay, as they are pressed by different, or contrary occasions, (as hath been noted else where) and therefore it imports little, what you cite out of Potter against us, seeing that can only show, that he is forced to contradict himself, as also other Protestants are. Now how full the Doctor, yourself, and other chiefest Protestants are in favour of us, and our salvation, hath been proved heretofore, at large, out of their own words. 22. Your (N. 30.31.32.33.34.) do only demonstrate, that you undertake to declare the Doctrine of Protestants (about good works, repentance, justification &c:) without any commission from them; which you could not but see, and therefore are forced (N. 33.) to say: If this doctrine (about justification by Faith only) be otherwise expounded than I have here expounded, I will not under take the justification of it. And therefore you had no reason to affirm, 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 than weak, and so much nothing, that it can never be gotten. For seeing, that Faith which Calvinists hold to be justifying, can never be lost, if once it be gotten, this Disjunctive must needs be evidently true, either it cannot be gotten, or if it be gotten, it cannot be lost. That which you untimely talk here, of the subject wherein God hath placed the Authority of defining matters of Faith, hath been 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 Catholics, which Potter objects about this matter, and shows his ill dealing in alleging them. But this is not the first time, that you dissemble, what Cha: Ma: delivers in his second Part, though yet you make use of it, when it may serve your turn, which certainly is no just kind of proceeding. But to return to your defence of other chief Protestants; whereas Cha: Ma: said here (N. 12. out of his Chap: 3. N. 19) that justification by Faith alone is by some Protestants avouched to be the soul of the Church, the principal Origin of salvation; of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest; yet you say here (N. 32.) For my part. I do heartily wish, that by public Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever preach or print this Dostrine that Faith alone justifies, unless he joins these together with it, that universal obedience is necessary to salvation (if the Commandments cannot be kept, how can the observation of them, or universal obedience, be taught as necessary to salvation?) And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which entreat of justification by Faith, without the works of the Law (mark here how impertinently Protestant's apply the Authority of S. Paul against justification by works, seeing Mr. Chillingworth declares that he speaks of the works of 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 diffident are you of this soul of the Church, this principal origin of salvation of Protestants! Your last lines are so obscure, and confused, that after consideration by myself, and with others, I can draw from them nothing, but nonsense; and for such I must leave them. Concerning our greater safety I have touched in the Preface to the Reader, some Points, taken from your express doctrine, and words which here I judge needles to repeete. 23. For Conclusion of my Book, I disposed myself to give 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 twelvemonth's before it was published, which upon my certain knowledge is must untrue.) But upon careful examination thereof, I find that labour to be needless. You would make the Reader believe that Ch: Ma: omitted to answer some material points of Dr. Potter's Book; and, that you had observed all the Directions which were given in that little Treatise, entitled: A Direction be to observed by N. N. If he mean to proceed in answering the Book entitled Mercy and Truth, or Charity Maintained by Catholics &c: But both these affirmations, are fully and truly answered, by an absolute denial, 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 proceed in a destructive way (which in that Direction you were warned to avoid) who deny Christian Religion to be infallibly true? And how can Christian Faith be supernatural, if it be only a probable Conclusion, evidently deduced from evident probable Premises? And I wonder with what face you can say here § And lastly: that thief archer of all hearts knows, 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 jesus, seeing you have endeavoured nothing more, through your whole Book, than to prove that Christian Religion is not infallible? That you have contradicted Dr. Potter, hath been showed heretofore in several occasions: And the same, (I mean, that you have not observed those Directions) might be demonstrated, in every particular, if it were worth the labour; but for that Direction, which was, (not to contradict yourself) you have trangressed it so notoriously, as I should never have believed, if my own experience had not convinced me thereof; which made it, as hard to give an answer to your Book, as it is to make on coat fitting the moon in all its changes (which is your own 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 pressed with different Arguments) that I could not but often say with much Truth. Quis teneat vultus mutantem Protea Nodus? FINIS. 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 Heretic, if he be a true Priest, and hath intention to administer the Sacrament. C. 4. N. 42. P. 377. 578. Absurdityes in Catholic Faith falsely supposed by I'll: c. 1. n. 76. p. 90. but proved by his own tenets to be truly in his Faith. N. 77. and p. 97. n. 84 & seq: Accidents dispose to effects more noble than themselves: yea held by many to be real muse's of substances. c 1. n 79. 80. p 94. 95. Acts proper to necessary Powers must needs be produced, if the means to work be complete: but free Powers may with complete means suspend the act. c 11. n 65. p 694. & seq. The essence of acts ignorantly discoursed of by I'll: c 12. n 21. p 721. & seq. Advertisements for whomsoever shall undertake to answer this Book not to follow I'll: his steps in commencing new controversies. Pr. n. 5. 6. p. 2. 3. If the Apostles could err in any point of Religion they can be certainly believed in none c. 2. n. 95. p. 200. c. 12. n. 47. p. 742. & alibi. Out Saviour's Words to them as private persons, and as representing the Church mus● be differently understood. c. 12. n. 80. p. 767. and seq: Their authority must be believed before we can believe what they spoke or wrote c. 3. n. 22. p. 294. n. 31. p. 300. & passim. Apostles for the essential are and always 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 I'll: c. 12. n. 91. p. 777. Apprehension taken for the first operation of the understanding agrees not to Faith, which is an assent, or judgement: taken in general, as knowledge often is, it agrees to Faith as knowledge doth. c. 15. n. 4. p. 886, 887. How arguments of credibility may be elevated to produce certainty, and in what sense they are the word and voice of God. c. 1. n. 79.80. p. 95.96. Attrition without absolution insufficient for salvation. What conditions it must have to obtain absolution, c. 8. n. 3. p. 597. & seq. S. Austin rejected and alleged by I'll: for the self same point: and shown to be adversary to I'll: c. 2. n. 193. p. 265. and seq. His advice for the understanding 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. Why he is an eyesoare to the Socinians. c. 7. n. 123. p. 544. He is defended against I'll: his forgery. c. 12. n. 57 p. 749. and seq: c. 2. n. 207. p. 273. & alibi saepius. B. Baptism acknowledged by Protestants necessary, 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 Baptism. c. 2. n. 39 p. 146. & seq: It is validly administered by jew or Gentille, if they intent to do what Christians do. c. 4. n. 42. p. 377. 378. Baptism in tho Doctrine of divers Protestants pardons all sins past, present, and to come c. 2. n. 85. p. 187. Beatifical vision, if Faith be natural, and only probable, is also natural, and may be a mere fiction. c. 1. n. 113. p. 118. 119. To believe only that jesus is the son of God is acknowledged even by heretics insufficient for salvation. c. 2. n. 169. p. 245. 246. Who believes not one point sufficiently propounded can have no supernatural Faith about any other c. 11. n. 13. p. 658. c. 15. n. 43. p. 922. and seq: This proved by Heretics and Catholics, ibidem. Not to believe any revealed truth sufficiently propounded is a mortal sin n. 49. p. 927. I believe not the speaker, when I only assent for the reason he gives, or for some other authority cited by him c. 12. n. 49. p. 744. & alibi. Bellarmine viudicated from I'll: his cavils c. 2. n. 98. p. 201. and seq: What Bishop or Episcopus signify cannot evidently be known by Scripture alone. c. 2. n. 11. p. 126. That Bishops in the Church are not juris divini is an heresy c. 5. n. 4. p. 429. & seq: Doctor Andrewe● his contradiction in this point ibidem. Bishops have no succession in England ibidem Books published to forewarn I'll: to clear himself of his unchristian doctrines, which he would never be induced to do pr. n. 4. p. 2. C Caiphas in Chillingworthes doctrine spoke truth when he wickedly said that our Saviour blasphemed c. 11. n. 38. p. 675. Canon of Scripture cleared from Chill: his malicious imputation c. 11. n. 22. (it should be 21.) p. 663. & seq: The Canonicalness of the books of Scripture is to be taken from the declaration of the Church c. 11. n. 6. 7 p. 653. (falsely put 953) & passim alibi: every Canonical 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 believe c. 2. n. 136 p. 223 & seq: ac alibi. Causabons' miserable end c. 6 n. 9 p. 444 Catholics 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 Catholic Roman out of which Luther departed c. 7 n. ●1 p. 522 Reasons why the Catholic Church is not to be forsaken, n. 124 p. 545. 546 If she could err, her errors were rather to be professed, than her Communion forsaken n. 132 p. 551 & deinceps. Catholics judge charitably that Protestancy unrepented destroys salvation: and Piotestants, if they hold their Religion true, should judge the like of Catholics c. 9 n. 2 p 624 Catholics guided by the infallibility of the Church cannot be prejudiced by translations of Scripture, nor fear corruptions. c. 11 n. 16 p. 659 The Catholic Church an easy way to find Christ's doctrine. c. 3 n. 89 p. 348 She is infallible, or all Christianity a fiction. c. 4 n. 1 p. 352 Not Catholics, but Lutherans exposed to idolatry c. 4 n. 65 p. 393. Catholics freed by Protestants from that imputation Ib. p 395 Catholics prove 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 Catholics falsely charged by Chill: that they hold Faith to have no degrees of perfection. c. 1 n. 43 44 p. 68 69 Catholic writers falsely cited by Potter as holding that Catholics and Protestants do not differ in the essence of Religion. c. 7 n. 148 p. 567 Catholics, though falsely supposed to err, their error must be invincible c. 7 n. 158 p. 578 & seq: Causes by divine power may be elevated to produce effects nobler than themselves, as also by concauses c. 1 n. 79 p. 94 Certainty in the understanding forces not the will c. 1 n. 62 p. 80 & seq: Ceremonies, vide Rites. Charity Maintained alleged and impugned by I'll: either with falsification, or ommitting his arguments, or with some other fraud, is often showed through this whole Book. His Book is not answered by I'll: but new heresies broached, and old fetched from Hell to overthrow all Christianity. Pr: n. 3 p. 1. 2 Charity highly broken by Protestants in judginge Catholics uncharitable c. 9 n. 7 p. 628 It is ordered either according to the Phisic all perfection of the things loved or the moral 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 rational assent I. n. 16 p. 11 & seq: and c. 10 n. 13 p. 640 641 That to hold Christian faith infallible is presumptuous, uncharitable, 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 Heresy I. n. 51 p. 35 He rejects grace with Pelagius, and freewill with Calvin c. 1 n. 65 p. 82 & seq: Many hideous Tenets of his concerning Faith discovered in all the first Chap: He holds that Charity may stand with deadly sin I. n. ●1 p. 35 c 15 n. 45 p. 925 That the contents of Scripture are not more certain than humane Histories I. n. 18 p. 13 14 That we are not bound to believe 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 says, than 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 material object of Taith, and that there is no obligation to believe 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 coming 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 possibly have at the hour of death c. 4 n. 50 p. 384 That all Scripture is not divinely inspired c. 12 n. 38 p. 735 That our Saviour's promise that the Holy Ghost should remain with the Apostles was not for their successors but only for the term of their lives: nor that but conditionally c. 12 n. 83 p. 771 He revives Wiclifs Heresy n. 85 p. 774. That contradictoryes may both be true, with many horrid impietyes which strike at the root of Christian Religion c. 13 n. 20 p. 802 & seq: His insolent treaty of S. Tho: of Aqui: c. 15 n. 45 46 47 p. 925 926 His little confidence in his own 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 calling God to witness of his sincerity in writing his Book, to confirm the infallible Religion of our Saviour, which he strives in his whole Book to prove fallible c. 16 n. 23 p. 948 Many other of his pernicious Tenets appear in this whole Book, and his errors against Scripture, toto c. 3. His contradictions are so frequently showed, that no particular place needs be cited. The like is of his continual begging the question or ask impertinently, in place of proof why may not such athing be; with out any proof. Church. To follow the Church, is to follow Scripture, which recommends the Church unto us c. 2 n. 201 p. 270 To her recourse must be had not to be deceived in interpreting Scripture Ibid: Her universal practice is to be held an Apostolical Tradition Ibid: Many things are to be done for her authority without express Scripture n. 209 p. 274 She ceases not to be a Church for sins of Manners, but of Faith c. 7 n. 85 p. 517 & seq: Unity necessary to be members of one Church, must be in all points sufficiently proposed, fundamental, or not fundamental n. 74 p. 505 & seq: And in external Communion Ibid: which in divine service is unlawful with those of a different Faith n. 82 p. 511 It is all one to leave the Church and to jeave her external Communion: nor can any separate from her and remain a part of her n. 73 p. 503 & sequen: He not only separates from the Church, who separates from her external Communion, but alsomorally from himself n. 110 p. 532 & seq: No Church, no Schism n. 93.94 p. 523 If the Church be infallible in fundamentals, she must also be so in unfundamentalls. n. 126 p. 547 548 He can be no member of the Church who disbeleeves any point sufficiently proposed as revealed by God c. 10 n. 5 p. 635 Nor can the Church remain a Church with any such error n. 6 p. 635 & seq: She being infallible it is damnable to oppose her n. 9 p. 637 638 She determines controversies as emergent occasions require: 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 Canonical proves out of it particular truths concerning herself 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 Canonical n. 54 p. 322 The true Church wanted not evident notes and proofs before Scripture was c. 4 n. 24 p. 365 & toto c. 5 She is viâ ordinariâ the means 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 deceived in points belonging to Salvation. She is the ordinary means to teach, and therefore to be sought n. 79. p. 403 & sequen: Infallibility granted her, for all points belonging to Religion; but nor for curiosities n. 95 p. 418 & sequen: She used disputations and discourse for her definitions n. 99 p. 424 42● She essentially requires unity in Faith and in in the external worship of God. Divivision from her in Faith is heresy; in external communion is Schism c. 7 n. 2. 3 p. 458 459 460 If she be not infallible but falls into error all must shun her communion n. 22 p. 471 472 She is endued by Christ with all requisits for the whole mystical 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 have infallible means 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 error would be damnable, c. 14 n. 17 p. 724 & seq: She is extensiuè of equal infallibility with the Apostles, but not intensiuè. i.e. in the manner, numb; 35 p. 731 & seq: If her authority be centaine for Scripture, it must be the like for whatsoevet she proposes, n. 52 p. 746 She being once proved to be infallible, may give irrefragable testimony of her own infallibility, n. 107 p. 787 How the Church is always visible, c. 14 n. 4 p. 848. 849 What right and power she had, and for many ages had been peaceable possessed of at Luther's coming, n. 48 p. 880. The commandments 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 lawful with those of a different Faith, c. 7 n. 82 p. 511 Who leaves to communicate in what all agree, leaves the communion of all. And in what all, otherwise divided, do agree must be true, n. 118 p. 538. 539. Communion of Protestants is composed of contradictory members, and consistent with all sorts of Heretics, n. 67 p. 501 & sequen: In what sense a Community can oblige itself, 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 vain, 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 understood to be such, may be be believed, c. 1. n. 54. p. 76. Concerning centradictoryes, Chill: Doctrine is discussed, disproved, and the bad consequences of it shown, c. 13. n. 20. p. 802. & sequentibus. The Council of Trent sufficient to convince the truth of Catholic Religion, J. n. 10. p. 7. General counsels if not infallible cannot end controversies of Faith, c. 2. n. 45. p. 483. The Doctrine of Lawd concerning General Counsels and sequels drawne from it in favour of Catholics, c. 7. n 40. p. 481. & sequen: Also from the Doctrine of I'll: and Potter concerning the same, n. 160. P. 579, & sequen: and n 48 p. 48●. Of the Creed through all the c. 13. It is averred by Chil. to be received by universal tradition, independent of Scripture, and that the principles of Faith may be known by it independent also of Scripture, and yet teaches that only Scripture is received by universal 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, seeing Potter grants 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 seem true Catholics by communicating with the Bishop of Rome, c. 15, n. 11. p. 894 Their hatred to Catholics imitated by Protestants, n. 12. p. 895. They were justly said to be confined to Africa, having no where else any considerable number, n. 36. (it should have been 35.) p. 916. (which is put, 816.) They had no Divine Faith, c. 16. n. 19 p. 943. 944. Their heresy of rebaptisation, Ibid: A doubt properly taken destroys probability, c. 1. n. 53. p. 75. 76. Reflected upon and embraced it is not unvoluntary, n. 54. p. 76. Apprchended but rejected is no voluntary doubt, Ibid: E Errors 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 Gospels, c. 2. n. 158. p. 235. Evangelists always in the Church, c. 12. n. 100 p. 783. Eucharist altered in matter and form by heretics, 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 themselves more to sin, than Catholics, if he be not present, c. 4. n. 65. p. 394. 395. Evidence of things contained in Scripture, diversely understood, e. 2. n. 6. p. 123. & seq: In what sense Catholics may affirm that all things necessary for the church are evidently contained in Scripture, n. 9 p. 125. Evidence to Sectaryes is what they fancy, 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 schismatic from the church, but presupposes his own voluntary▪ separation; which also may remain 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 affirms that the 39 Articles, contain superstition or error, n. 66. p. 501. The difference betwixt excommunication and Schism n. 64. p. 499. and n, 104. p. 529. F Faith of Christians proved infallible, c. 1. per totum. Without a circle, c. 5. per tonum. Infallible Faith strictly commanded as the first step 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 supernatural virtues, and consequently itself is supernatural, n. 98. p. 105. It takes its essence from Divine Revelation c. 12. n. 20 (it is put 14) p. 720. It is of its essence indivisible, but divisible in intention c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 & seq: It is an intellectual virtue repugnant to error n. 28 p. 59 It determines to truth, and corrects reason, c. 1. n. 29 p. 60 Compared with natural science an act of Faith is most certain: but the acts of Faith compared amongst themselves may exceed one another in gradual perfection c. 1 n. 44 p. 68 & seq: Supernatural Faith may be without Charity, but cannot overcome the world without it n. 61 p. 80 Nor is it an efficient cause of the habit of Charity n. 67 p. 83 84 The certainty of it takes not away free will n. 62 p. 81 & seq: The infallibility of Faith is only requisite for the general grounds● for the particular application or matter of fact a moral certainty suffices: c. 4 n. 11 p. 357 & seq: and n. 30 p. 376 377 what is necessary for the exercising a true act of Faith n. 13 p. 359 Heretics opposite doctrines about Faith c. 1 n. 1 p. 38 Potter and I'll: directly opposite about the infallibility of it n. 6 p. 40 The Faith of I'll: and the sequels of it in his own grounds paralleled with the Catholic, and convinced to be most prejudicial to salvation n 75 p. 88 89 90 Fallibility of Christian Faith is scandalous to jews, Turks and paynims n. 1 p. 37 It brings to Atheism Ib: and n. 100 p. 107 casts into agonyes and perplexityes. Those that hold it dare not declare themselves Ib: I'll: would seem to admit of infallibility n. 39 p. 66 67 and supernaturality n. 93 p. 103 His examples to show that fallible Faith is sufficient for salvation, are examined and convinced to prove the contrary A nu: 102 p. 109 ad finem capit. Fallible Faith is always ready to destroy itself n. 105 p. 111 112 It was cause of I'll: so often changes; Ibid: He acknowledges that in such a Faith nothing can be settled n. 22 p. 54 55 He obliges to unsettledness n. 25 p. 57 and professed himself was so n. 24 p. 56 This kind of Faith brings liberty of life n. 26 p. 58 destroys Christian belief in all points n. 8 p. 41 (falley put 45) is a certain way to perdition n. 106 p. 113 & seq: and with its fallibility infallibly damns n. 31 p. 63 Faith of Sectaryes runs 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 accorded with grace I. n. 5 p. 3 n. 8 p. 5 n. 9 p. 6 n. 13 p. 8 Concerning Fundamentals, and not fundamentals, toto c. 6 Fundamental and not fundamentall points are distinguished by their material objects c. 7 n. 170 p. 585 etc. what is understood by them c. 6 n. 1 p. 440 Fundamentals must be known by Protestants in particular n. 18 p. 449 450 Yet have they no means for it Ibid: The Creed can be no Catalogue of them n. 12 p. 446 I'll: holds a particular Catalogue of fundamenmentalls unnecessary and impossible; and contradicts himself much in it n. 6 p. 442 & seq: Contradictions of Protestants concerning fundamentals c. 6 n. 2. 3 p. 441 To know fundamentals, only Catholics have certain means c. 6 n. 29 (it is put 59) p. 456. 457 This means 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 own perfections c. 16 n. 9 p. 936 937 Goths converted from Gentilism by Catholics, perverted by Arians c. 11 n. 77 p. 669 Actual Grace necessary for all actions of piety I. n. 12 p. 7 & seq: To believe, n. 16 p. 10 & seq: To hope, n. 22 p. 17 & seq: For Charity, n. 23 24 p. 18 For keeping the commandments, and overcoming temptations n. 25 p. 19 & seq: For Repentance, n. 27.28 p. 26 For Perseverance, n. 29 p. 22 & seq: Habitual grace necessary to keep the commandments n. 34 p. 24 & seq: It is a participation of the whole divine nature n. 40 p. 27 The Eulogiums of it out of H. Fathers n. 41 p. 27 28 Proved to be supernatural and inherent in us n. 42 p. 28 & seq: It is inconsistent with mortal sin n. 45 46 p. 32 How the Grecians have often submitted to the Roman Church, and agree with her against Protestants c. 11 n. 78 p. 704 & seq: Only a living guide and infallible can keep men from straying in Faith. The necessity of such a Guide proved through this whole Book. H Three sorts of Habits c. 8. n. 11 p. 605 etc. The difference betwixt infused and acquired Habits J. n. 4. p. 3 What dependence the real entityes of natural Habits have one of another, or of natural acts, or of supernatural acts or habits c. 8 n. 12 p. 607 &c Supernatural Habits are nor produced by acts as natural are, but infused by God, not to facilitate, but to enable to produce acts, and are properly rather Powers than Habits n. 13 14 p. 609 610 They are not discernible sensibly Ibid: and J. n. 50 p. 35 Nor acquired or destroyed as are the natural, real 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 moral habits by repentance n. 11 p. 605 etc. Habitual sin may remain without the Physical habits of vice, and these without habitual sin Ibid: If real habits of vice be habitual sin, the real habits of natural virtues 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 actual grace J. n. 21 p. 16 Heresy is a more grievous sin then a mere external false profession c. 7 n. 134 p. 555 Acknowledged for heresy by Protestants to say that the Church Militant may possibly be dryven out of the world n. 143 p. 563 It is a mark of heresy to separate from the Church, and 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 Heretics 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 spiritual Children n. 73 p. 77 The reason of this, and why they work no Miracles c. 15 n. 41 p. 921 The Hierarchy of Protestant, Bishops and Priests overthrown 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 Jews and Sectaryes remaining such may by I'll: repentance be saved c. 10 n. 3 p 633 Mere Ignorance and positive error distinguished: and I'll: gross mistakes in this point c. 12 n. 10 p. 714 & seq: The use and worship of Images allowed by Protestants c. 7 n. 122 p. 543 Indulgences in Catholic Doctrine consistent with the fear of Purgatory and Hell c. 2 n. 84 85 p. 186 187 By them is not pardoned the guilt of sin, much less sins to come Ibid: Who is in himself Infallible hath the ground of an infallible guide, and may exercise it if accidental impediments be removed c. 4 n. 88 p. 414 415 Intention required by Protestants for administering Sacraments c. 4 n. 32 p. 372 It is sufficient if it be to do 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 than intention n. 31 p. 371 S. Irenaeus notoriously falsifyed by Chill● c. 2 n. 161 p. 237 & seq: His true sense concerning the unwritten 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 supernatural quality infused, against Pelagius; in herent in us 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 testimonies of leatned Protestants c. 15 n. 31 p. 911 etc. K Knowledge is differently taken, but in general any act of the understanding, though obscure, as Faith, may be called knowledge c. 15 n. 3 p. 884 & seq: L Doctor Lawds discourse about General Counsels c. 7 n. 40 p. 481 & seq: His testimony, and of other chief Protestants cited by him, that Roman Catholics have what is necessary for salvation n. 151 p. 572 Liberius Pope never subscribed to heresy, and what he subscribed in matter of fact against S. Athanasius he revoaked as soon as he was at liberty c. 15 n. 24 p. 903 Luther's Tenet; that to hold an obligation of keeping the commandments is to deny Christ and abolim Faith J. n. 25 p. 19 That laws and good works are more to be shunned then sins, 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 I'll: 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 Roman Church, c. 15. n. 33. p. 914. 915. Merit by good works 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. etc. I'll: imposture upon S. Justine Martyr concerning it, confuted by testimonies of Protestants, Ibi. Miracles perpetually wrought by the church do not only confirm 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 unfit to convert people, c. 5. n. 7. p. 433. 434. showed by Scripture to be proofs of true Faith, n. 9 p. 435. To deny them is to oppose our Saviour and his Apostles, and to undermine all Christianity, n. 8. p. 434. Wrought before Protestants were dreamt of in confirmation of particular points in which they disagree from Catholics, Ibid: Yet they are not necessary for every point of christian doctrine, c. 3. n. 33. p. 301. Acknowledged by Luther to have been in the church through all ages, for these 1500. years. c 5. n. 4. p. 429. By them have been converted Jews 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 conserve itself embraceth by instinct great natural difficultyes, as less evils than its own destruction, c. 1 n. 114. p. 119. To affirm that it is as easy to obey the Gospel as to perform, what the common instinct of nature commands, is injurious to our Saviour's merits, Ibid. As natu●●● instinct for its natural conservation is cer●●●●● and invariable, so must the light of Faith be for supernatural conservation, Ibid. Divers understandings of things Necessary to salvation, c. 2. n. 1. p. 122. & seq. Notes of credibility authorise the writers before their writings, c. 5. n. 1. p. 426. & seq. and n. 5. p. 431. 432. They authorise the church independently of Scripture and fall primarily upon her, not upon Scripture, Jbid. What church they authorise is to be infallibly believed in all points, n. 6. p. 433. God of his goodness could not permit them be found as they are in the catholic Roman 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's and other Sectaryes, n. 4. p. 429. 430. O Objects are not obsure, evident, certain, probable etc. in themselves, but only so denominated extrinsecally by the acts to which those affections are proper. c. 15. n. 6. p. 888. 889. Observations to answer 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 speculative Persuasion differs much from a practical, c. 14. n. 46. p. 879. S. Peter and the Apostles vindicated from the error imputed to them by Chill. c. 3. n. 34. 35. p. 303. 304. S Peter Primacy over all the Apostles, c. 14. n. 35 p. 871. & seq. He was not present when 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 principal rightly declared, c. 2. n. 128 p. 218. 219. the most points of catholic Religion held by some Protestants, or other, n. 91. 92. p. 193 194. 195. & alibi. Those by which catholics are made most odious to the vulgar held by chiefest Protestant Doctors, n. 92. p. 195. The Pope held infallible by Potter if he hath but the assistance which the high Priest of the Jews had, c. 11. n. 36. p. 673. This saying of Potter falsely and foolishly interpred by Chill: n. 39 40. p. 675. many disparities betwixt the Church and the Synagogue, n. 38. p. 674. & seq: The Primacy of the Church of Rome is de Jure Divino, c. 14. n. 31. p. 868. It is acknowledged by Protestants to be according 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. (falsely put 167.) and n. 60. p. 496. Profession of an error, if it it be merely exexternall is a less sin then internal Heresy, n. 133. (falsely put 123.) p. 554. By Prophesy is not only understood 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 always had such Prophets, n. 100 p. 783 An indefinite Proposition in matters of Faith is equivalent to an universal, c. 12. n. 57 p. 749. Protestants were not first forced by excommunication to separate from the Church, but their precedent obstinate separation forced the Church to excommunicate them, c. 7 n. 62. p. 497. & seq: For this separation they could have no ground, n. 169. p. 584. the learned of them taxing of ignorance and absurdity those that deny salvation to Roman Catholics, n. 151. p. 573. Nor can they have any evidence against Catholic Doctrine, n. 52. p. 490. & seq: Whose objections were answered long before Protestants appeared in the world, n. 59 p. 495. Their arguments to prove that by Scripture alone the Articles of Faith are to be known, fully answered, c. 2. n. 57 p. 159. & seq: & alibi. Learned Protestants confess that the Fathers agree with us against them, c. 2. n. 90. p. 192. They make their own reason not Scripture, as they pretend, the Rule of Faith and judge of controversies, c. 11. n. 61. p. 692. Whence they must needs have a chimerical Church patched up 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 union except under the Pope. c. 7. n. 13. p. 467. For once divided 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 Catholics in Philosophical 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 errors against Divine Revelation, and must needs make every man an Independent, and be daily changing his Tenets, c. 7. n. 154. p. 574. & seq: For Protestants Faith hath no infallible general grounds as that of Catholics hath into which it is resolved, c. 4. n 20. p. 364. Hence their many contradictions and disagreings amongst themselves, of which divers I note in particular occasions. By their own fault they have brought upon themselves an obligation to search all Scripture, and can 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 sins past, present, and to come, pardoned in Baptism, and of their certain predestinating Faith, they take away all fear of sinning, c. 2. n. 84. p 186. & seq: Shown by divers considerations, that they can give no relief to an afflicted Soul, but only chalk out a way to desperation, c. 13. n. 43. p. 823. & seq: If they use the means they have to find true Faith, and yet disagree, the means must veeds be insufficient; if they do not use 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. What, and why, c. 15. n. 7. p. 889. It requires not ability to give reasons, Jb: and c. 1. n. 89. p 102 What we seem prudently to believe, if indeed it be not so, although we cannot discover our imprudence, is not believed with an act of Divine Faith, yet may facilitate for it, Jb: not all pruent acts are supernatural, but all supernatural are prudent, n. 92. p. 102 (the 2. for it is put twice.) Q Quartadecimans' heresy, 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. etc. Unable to wade through main difficultyes in Scripture, or to convince itself of the misteryes of our Faith, which are so much above it, c. 3. n. 75 76. p. 337, 338. It requires an infallible living Guide, Ib: Its duty 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 absolutely necessary for salvation, c. 8. n. 3. p. 598. It instantly obtains pardon. n. 16. p. 612. & seq: And perfect repentance destroys in the habits acquired by finfull acts the moral denomiration of sinful, but not the Physical or real being of it, n. 11 p. 605.606. With which real being, both true repentance and grace may, and do commonly stand. n. 12 p 607. & seq: Divers opinions of heretics concerning repentance, n. 2 p. 597. Chill: general repentance contradicts his own grounds, n. 5 p. 601. Drives to desperation. Ib: and n. 6 p. 602. It cannot stand with the Tenets of Protestants that only Faith justifyes, and that the commandments cannot be kept, Ib: n. 7. It implies that no sinner can be converted nor baptised in his blood by martyrdom n. 8 It is showed to be impossible by the nature of the habits which he requires to be rooted out, and is always full of perplexity, n. 9 10. p. 603 604 605. Reprodu&ion or factum facere implies not evident contradiction; but factum infectum facere, doth, c. 11 n. 12 p. 657. Resolution of Catholic Faith without a circle, toto c. 5. But Protestants and their pretended Brothers run in a circle, Ib: and particularly n. 13 14 15 p. 437 438. Rites or ceremonies of themselves indifferent, may be without sin observed, but if they be held as necessary the observance may be deadly, c. 14 n. 2 p. 847. That it be certainly known that they are useful and not hurtful the infallible declaration of the church is required, c. 11 n. 46 p. 678. 679. The Roman Church assisted above all other by the holy Ghost not to err, c. 7 n. 58 p. 492. 493. By her is understood not only that of the Diocese of Rome, but all that agree with her, in which sense she is called the Catholic or universal 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 have been pure for the first 500 years, n. 18. p 492. 493. Impossible she should immediately after that tyme fall into the corruptions pretended by them, and none take notice of it, Ib: and p 494 they also confesse that she wants 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 Heretics both for matter and form, 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 believe all revealed points sufficiently proposed c. 12. n. 16 p. 717. & seq: The salvation of our own soul is to be preferred before the good of the whole world, c. 16. n. 11 p. 937. 938. Of Schism, all the 7. c. Schism as distinct from heresy supposes agreement in Faith, n. 75 p. 506. 507. It is a sin against Charity which unites the members of the Church, n. 98 p. 526. 527. It is destructive of the whole Church, n. 133. (falsely 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 Schism can be given by the Church, n. 5 p. 460. 461. and n. 23 p. 472. 473. (falsely put 472) & passim, Pretence of reformation cannot excuse it, n. 11 p. 465. To say that they from whom it separates are not cut off from hope of salvation, doth not excuse, but rather makes the Schism more greavous, n. 10 p. 463. 464. Potter's contradiction affirming that the Romancehurch hath all that's necessary for salvation, and yet that her external communion may be left without Schism. n. 8 p. 463. By his own Tenets they are proved Schismatics who separate from the communion of the Church of Rome, n. 7 p. 462 & seq: Schism unlawfully begunn cannot be lawfully continued by others, n. 96 p. 524. 525. Schism may accidentally be more prejudicial than Heresy, n. 134 p. 555. It is ill defined by I'll: n. 19 p. 470 and n. 23 p. 472. He falsely calls it a separation of some part of the Church, n. 173 p. 589 & seq: Of Chill: errors against Scripture toto c. 3. In his grounds it is of less assurance then profane authors, n. 44 p. 313. It is a material 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 believe it before they can believe the contents, n. 21 p. 293. If they were not obliged to believe it, they should not be obliged to believe the contents, n. 4 p. 281. 282. Scripture affirmed by some Protestants to to be known by itself to be the word of God; denied by others. c. 2. n. 88 p. 190. 191. It is hard to be understood, n. 27 p. 135 and n. 71 p. 174. where it is showed 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 believe, that it is clear, yet do they assign many rules necessary for the understanding of it, which few can possibly observe, n. 43 p 151. Nor are they sufficient, as is demonstrated by the unanswerable arguments of Dr. Hierome Taylour, n 44 p. 152 & seq: and appears 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 us against their Brethren, n 90. 91. p 192. 193. According to Chill: every man though unlearned 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 Catholics that Scripture contains evidently all things necessary, c. 2 n 7. 8. 9 p. 124. 125. Scripture needs not be plain to every privates man's capacity, the Church being always 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 corporal eye; but the understanding together with some supernatural comprincipium of the act, may, c 11 n. 10 11 p 654 & seq: Sin and indeliberation are inconsistent, c 1 n 71 p 85. 86. It can neither be committed without knowledge, nor repent whilst it is actually committing, c 8 n 20 p 617 & seq: One sin not repent draws on others 1. n 35. 36 p 24. 25. God gives fewer helps to people in mortal sin then in the stare of grace, n 38 p 25. 26. A mortal sin is worse than the torments of hell, n 47 p 34 Sin in a thing not necessary necessitate medij is avoided 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 Socinianism of Chill: the way to Atheism, c 1 n 100 p 107 D. Stapleron vindicated from Potter's falsification, c 4 n 95 p 418 & seq: His Doctrine about the Church's 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 answered. Many concerning the chief points of Christianity alleged by Chill: to prove the evidence of Scripture in things necessary, shown even by the errors of old and new Heretics, to require a living infallible judge, c 2 n 32 p 140 & seq: Deut: 4.2. Ye shall not add to the word etc. answered c 2 n 61 p 161. 162 Act: 17.11. of the Bereans deaily searching the Scriptures, answered n 64 p 168 Apoc: 24 v. 18. 19 If any man shall add to these things etc. n. 65 p 169. 170 & seq: S. john 5.39. search the Scriptures, n 62 p 162 & seq: S. john 20.31. These are written that ye may believe, 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. Paul Rom: 14 5. profanely applied by Chill: c. 11 n. 31 p. 670. S. Paul 1. Tim: 3.15. about the infallibility of the universal 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 Type or figure differs from a pattern c. 11 n. 48 p. 682 The Title of Chill: Book, Protestant Religion a safe way to salvation, proved not to agree to it, and shown what he should have put. Pr. n. 12 p 6 & seq: Against Tradition no dispute, c ● n 209 p 274 & seq: Tradition without Scripture, but not Scripture without Tradition sufficient to beget 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. chrysostom about Tradition, n 202 p 271 Tradition wholly destroyed by Chill: although he would seem to rely upon 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 unwritten amongst the jews, n 61 p 161 Transubstantiation is of less difficulty to natural reason then the mystery of the B. Trinity, c 11 n 12 p 657 V Pope Victor was in the right, c. 15. n 32. (falsely put 33.) p. 913. The Understanding cannot dissenr from a truth represented with evidence: yet the will may do contrary to it, c. 11. n. 65. 66. p. 694. & seq: Universal taken by Potter in a Logical sense and ignorantly opposed to Catholic, c. 7. n. 148. p. 565. W The difference betwixt a Way evidently known by sense from that which is known by Scripture, c. 4. n. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. p. 415. & seq: The Will is not always able to follow the understanding 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 Writers do no less deliver Counsels then commands by Divine inspiration, c. 3. n. 38. p. 306. & seq: Why not one Writing taken alone in its own nature, is sufficient to keep from error, c. 2. n. 178. 179. 180. p. 252. 253. 254. and n. 181 p. 256 & seq: this shown a fortiori of writings containing divine and sublime misteryes ', n. 184 p. 258 & seq: If writings by a singular miracle be always and by all uneerstood 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 living infallible interpreter or judge, n. 186. 187. p. 261. 262. 263. X Xenaias a fugitive slave, unbaptized, feigning Christianity crept into a Bishoprique, and was the first that made wart against Images, c. 7. n. 122. p. 543. ERRATA. Many of which arè left out, but such as is hoped will not trouble the understanding 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 prove to so to do all. prove to do so to all. 13 19 oath other 39 21 Christians Christian 61 24 degree degrees 106 14 not be not to be 130 7 collectinei collectiuè 173 5 of sared said of 187 38 every a very 192 11 on no 220 31 o of 222 11 of if 225 2 appear your appear by your. 226 9 cae case. 240 7 and necessity and 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 warred waved 394 7 that that then that 438 34 avoid avoid not 458 9 ormall formal 468 0 About Fundamental [points c. 6. Protestants guilty of [schism c. 7 459 18 just brand justly branded 531 1 you yet 533 20 member number 539 13 Greg. Millius in Are [gumenta Georg. Millius in Au [gustana. 556 24 officiously officious lie 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 object whereof his the object hereof is 617 21 precede proceed sins 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 and fear [full assent a but a wavering and fe (arfull assent 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 several 807 38 urge it against urge against 811 35 as thewed as I shown 823 8 it will he will 823 9 he cannot it cannot 826 23 to soon so soon 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 aim time 877 3-4 may another may not another 885 32 not deal 890 1 an any 920 36 and men and yet 935 5 It if If it