COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE ? LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Mr. Chiltingworths Book CALLED THE BcUstottof^otctitettts A SAFE WAY TO SALVATION, Made more generally ufeful by omitting Perfonal Contefts,but inferring whatfoever concerns the common Caufe of Proteftants, or defends the Church of England. WITH ^fSfo^k An ADDITION of lome genuine rieces of Mr. ChiUingwortVs never before Printed. J fane. Cafaub. in Ep. ad Card. Terron. Reg. Jac. nomine fcripta. Rex arbitratur rerum abfolute neceflariarum ad falutem non magnum efle nume- rum. Quare exiftimat ejus Majeftas, nullam ad ineundem concordiam brevio- rem viam fore, quam fi diligenter feparentur neceflaria a non neceflariis, & ut de neceflariis conveniat, omnis opera infumatur : in non neceflariis libertati Ghriftianac locus detur, Simpliciter neceflaria Rex appellat, quae vel expreffe verbum Dei praecipit credenda faciendave, vel ex verbo Dei neceflaria confequen- tia vetusEcclefia elicnit. — Si ad decidendashodiernasControverfiashaec diftin- clio adhiberetur, & jus divinum a pofitivo feu Ecclefiaftico candide feparare- tur ; non videtur de iis quae funt abfolute neceflaria, inter pios & moderatos vi- ms, longa aut acris contentio futura. Nam 8c pauca ilia funt, ut modd dice- bamus, & fere ex aequo omnibus probantur, qui fe Chriftianos dici poitulant. Atque iftam dill inctionem SerenifC Rex tanti putat efle momenti ad minuendas Controverfias, quae hodie Ecclefiam Dei tantopere exercent, ut omnium pads ftudioforum judicet officium efle, diligentiffime hanc explicare, docere,urgere. London, Printed for R. C hi/well y at the Role and Crown in S.Tauls Church- yard, C. Harper, at the Flower de-Luce in Flcetjheet, W.Crool^, at the Green- Dragon without Temple-Bar \ and J. Adamfon at the Angel in S.Paul's Church- yard. 1687. Vf- Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/mrchisOOpatr An Advertifement concerning this Edition. I Hope IJball incur no blame from thofe who defer- vedly value this Excellent BO 0 Z^ of Mr. Chil- lingworth, for having made it of a leffer bulk and an eajier purchafe than before, after I have told them my way of proceeding herein : I have not Epitomised it in the ufual way j by contracting any where his fenfe, and giving it more briefly in words of my own; which would have been indeed an injury to him, who knew fo well how to ex- prefibis ownfenfe fully and perfpicuoufly beyond mojl men, without any redundancy ofjiyle ; but by paring off and lea- ving out fome parts of it, which I thought might be well fyared, and make the fading of his Book more pleafant, as well as more generally ufeful, when his defence of the (proteflant DoEtrins and the caufe of the Reformation lay more clofely together not being interrupted with fo many pages Jpent tojujlifie Dr. Potter in the perfonal contejls be- twixt him and his adverfary ; or in detecting the fophijlry , frauds andfaljities of the Jefuit, where the matter was not of common concern. But where I thought it was, I have been fcrupuloujly careful to omit nothing: fo far from it, that lam apt upon a review to think, that the pleafure of reading his admirable Confutation, has bribed me to infert more than wo* needfnl, in purfuance of my firjl defgn. Ihe reafon why the Jefuits Book which Mr. Chilling- worth anfwers is not here reprinted, was partly becaufe it is too tedious and wordy, abounding in impertinent cavils, and affeHing to fetch a great compafio amufe and lofe the A 2 Reader Advertifement. Reader before he comes to the point in Qiieftion, which he jcarce ever attempts clofely to prove -, and chiefly hecaufe Mr. Chillingworth has commonly all along fet down in a different Character, as much of his works , as was needful to let the Reader fee, what it is he makes a^eply to, and where I found any omifjion of this kind, I have tranfcrihed out of the Jefuits (Booh fuch pdffages and citations, as might give further light to it : be fides, that every one who has a mind, or any doubt remaining about this matter, may eafily confult the Folio Edition Grfatisfie himfelf I have added a large Table of Contents at the end which was wanting before, whereby the Reader may find any Argument or head of Difcourfe therein contained, with little or no trouble; which Table willferve any Edition of the (Book, becaufe the numbers after the Chapter refer to the divijions of the Chapters at the fide, not to the Pages at the top. As for the Additional pieces that follow the (Book, and were never before printed, he that reads them will find by the cleamej? of exprejjion, the clofe way of arguing and jlrength ofreafoning,fufficient to convince htm that they are not furious, but the genuine productions of this great Man; bat yet for his further fatisfaffion he may know, that the Manujcript out of which moft of them were faithfully tran- fcrihed, is an Original of Mr. Chillingworths own hand- writing, and now in the cuflody of the Reverend Dr. Ten- nifon, to whom he is beholden for their prefent (Publi- cation. Farewel. T O TO T H E Mofl High and Mighty Prince, CHARLES BY THE GRACE OF GOD, KING of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, <6?v. May it fleafe Tour mofi Excellent Majefiy, IPrefent,with all humility to Your mofl facred Hands, a Defence of that Caufe which is and ought to be infinitely dearer to you, than all the world : Not doubting but upon this Dedication I (hall be cenfu- red for a double boldnefs; both for undertaking lb groat a Work, fo far beyond my weak abilities, and again, for prefenting it to fuch a Patron, whofe judgment I ought to fear more than any Adverfary. But for the firfl, it is a fatisfaction to my felf, and may be to others, that I was not drawn to it out of any vain opinion of my felf,(whofe perfonal defects are the only thing which I prefume to know, ) but undertook it in obedience to Him,whofaid,T* Converfus confirma fratres, not to S.Peter only but to all men: being encouraged alfoto it by the goodnefs of the Caufe, which is able to make a weak man ftrong.To the belief here- of I was not led partially or by chance, as many are, by the prejudice and prepofleflion of their Country, Education and fuch like inducements, which if they lead to truth in one place,perhaps lead to error in a hundred; but having with the greateft equality and indifferency, made enquiry and fearch into the grounds on both fides, J was billing to impart to others T7;e Epiftle Dedicatory. others that fatisfa&ion which was given to my felf. For my infcribing to it your Majefties facred Name, I fhould labour much in my excufe of it from high prefumption, had it not fome appearance of Title to your Majefties Patronage and prote&ion as being a Defence of that Book, which by fpecial Order from Your Majefty was written fome years fince chiefly for the general good, but peradventure not without fome aim at the recovery of One of your meaneft Subjects from a dangerous deviation, and fo due unto your Majefty, as the fruit of your own High humility and moft Royal Charity. Befides, it is in a manner nothing elfe, but a purfuance of, and a fuperftru&ion upon that blefled Do- &rin, wherewith I have adorn'd and arm'd the Frontifpiece of my Book, which was fo earneftly recommended by your Royal Father of happy memory, to all the lovers of Truth and Peace3 that is to all that were like himfelf, as the only hopeful means of healing the breaches of Chriftendom, whereof the Enemy of fouls makes fuch peftilent advan- tage. The luftreof this blefled Doftrin I have here endea- voured to uncloud and unveil, and to free it from thofe mifls and fumes which have been rais'd to obfcure it, by that Order, which envenoms even poifon it felf, and makes the Roman Religion much more malignant and turbulent than otherwife it would be; whofe very Rule and Dodtrin, obliges them to make all men, as much as lies in them, fub- je&s unto Kings, and fervants unto Chrift, no farther than it fhall pleafe the Pope. So that whether Your Majefty be confidered, either as a pious Son towards your Royal Father K. James, or as a tender hearted and companionate Son towards your diftrefled Mother, the Catholick Church, or as a King of your Subje&s, or as a Servant unto Chrift, this work, (to which I can give no other commendation, but that it was intended to do you fervice in all thefe capaci- ties,) may pretend not unreafonably to your Gracious ac- ceptance. The Epiftle Dedicatory. ceptance. Laftly being a Defence of that whole Church and Religion you profefs, it could not be fo proper to any Patron as to the great Defender of it ; which flile Your Majefty hath ever fo exa&ly made good, both in fecuring it from all dangers, and in vindicating it (by the well order- ing and rectifying this Church) from all the foul afperfions both of Domeftickand Forrein enemies, of which they can have no ground, but their own malice and want of Charity. But it's an argument of a defpairing and loft caufe to fupport it felf with thefe impetuous outcries and clamors, the faint refuges of thofe that want better arguments ; like that Sto- ick in Lucian that cried if ^m^-n, 0 damrid villain, when he could fay nothing elfe. Neither is it credible the wifer fort of them fhould believe this their own horrid aflertion, That a God of goodnefs fhould damn to eternal torments, thofe that love him and love truth, for errors which they fall into through humane frailty ! But this they muftfay, otherwife their only great arguraem from their damning us, and our not being fo peremptory in damning them, becaufe we hope unafFefted Ignorance may excufe them, would be loft : and therefore they are engaged to aft on this Tra- gical part, only to fright the fimple and ignorant, as we do little children by telling them that bites, "which we would not have them meddle with. And truly that herein they do but aft a part, and know themfelves to do fo, and deal with us here as they do with the King of Spain at Rome, whom they accurfe and Eccommunicate for fafhion fake on Mautidy-Thurfday,{ot detaining part of S.Peters Patrimony, and abfolve him without fatisfaftion on Good-Friday, me- thinks their faltring and inconftancy herein, makes it very apparent. For though for the moft part, they fpeak no- thing but thunder and lightning to us, and damn us all without mercy or exception, yet fometimes to ferve other purpofes, they can be content to fpeak to us in a milder (train, The Epijile Dedicatory. ftrain,and tell us, as my adverfary does, more than once, That they allow Proteftants as much Charity as P rot eft ants al- low them. Neither is this the only contradi&ion which I have difcovered in this uncharitable Work ; but have (hew- ed that by forgetting himfelf, and retracing moll of the principal grounds he builds upon, he hath faved me the la- bour of a confutation ; which yet I have not in any place found any fuch labour or difficulty, but that it was under- takeable by a man of very mean, that is, of my abilities. And the reafon is, becaufe it is Truth I plead for ; w7hich is fo ftrongan argument foritfelf, that it needs only light to difcover it : whereas it concerns Falfhood and Error to ufe difguifes and fhadowings and all the fetches of Art and So- phiftry, and therefore it ftands in need of abler men, to give that a colour at leaft, which hath no real body to fubfift by. If my endeavors in this kind may contribute any thing to this difcovery, and the talking plain that Truth (which my Charity perfwades me tne moft part of them difaffeft only, becaufe it has not been well reprefentcd to them,) I have the fruit of my labour, and my wilh; whodefire to live to no other end, than to do fervice to Gods Church and Your moft Sacred Majefty, in the quality of Tour Majefties moft faithful Sub j eft, and mofi humble and devoted Servant William Chillingworth. THE PRE FACE T O T H E AUTHOR O F With an Anfwer to his Dire&ion to N.N. SIR, UPON the firft news of the publication of your Book, I ufed all diligence with {peed to procure it ; and came with fuch a mind to the reading of it, as S. Auftin before he was a fetled Catholick, brought to his conference with Faufius the Manichee. For as he chought,that if any thing more then ordinary might be laid in defence of the Manichean Do&rine, Fauftus was the man from whom it was to be expected : So my perfuafi- on concerning you was, Si Pergama dextrd defendi pojjknt, certe hac defenfa that I am to give a mojt flritl account of every Une} and word that paQetb under my Pen ; and therefore have been precifely careful for the matter of my Book to defend B i truth The Preface to the Author of Charity maintain J, truth only, and only by Truth. And then fcrupuloufly fearful of Scandalizing you or any Man with the manner of handling it. 6. In your Pamphlet of Directions to N. N. you have loaded not only my perfon in particular, but all the Learn- ed and Moderate Divines of the Church of England, and all Proteftants in general, nay all wife Men or all Reli- gions but your own, with unworthy Contumelies, and a Mafs of portentous and execrable Calumnies. 7. To begin with the laft, you ftick not in the begin- in g of your firft Chapter, to fatten the imputation of Atheifm and Irreligion upon all wife and gallant Men, that are not of your oivn Religion. In which uncharitable and un- chnftian Judgment, void of all colour or fhadow of pro- bability, I know yet by experience that very many of the Bigots of your Fadion are partakers with you. God forbid I mould think the like of you ! Yet if Pfhould fay, that in your Religion there want not fome temptations unto, and fome Principles of Irrehgion and Atheifrn, I am fure I could make my Aflertion much more probable than you have done, or can make this horrible impu- tation. 8. For to pafs by firfi, that which experience juftifies., that where and when your Religion hath moft abfblutely commanded, there and then Atheifm hath moft abound- ed ; To fay nothing Secondly, of your notorious and con- feiTed forging of fb many falfe Miracles, and fb many lying Legends, which is not unlikely to make fufpitious men to quefrion the truth of all : Nor to objed to you Thirdly, the abundance of your weak and filly Ceremo- nies and ridiculous Obfervances in your Religion, which in all probability cannot but beget fecret contempt and (corn of it in wife and confidering men, and confequent- ly Atheifm and Impiety, if they have this perfuafion fet- led in them (which is too rife among you, and which you account a piece oiWifdom and Gallantry) that if they be not of your Religion, they were as good be of none at all: Nor to trouble you Fourthly with this, that a great part of your Dodrine, efpecially in the Points con- tended, with an anfwer to bis Direction to N. N. tefted, makes apparently for the temporal ends of the teachers of it; which yet I fear is a great fcandal to ma- ny Beaux Efprits among you : Only -I fhould defire you to confider attentively when you conclude fb often from the differences of Protefrants, that they have no certain- ty of any part of their Religion, no not of thofe Points wherein they agree, whether you do not that which fo magiftenally you direct me not todo,that is.proceed a de- fer uclive viay , and cbjetl arguments againft your adverja- riesy which tend to the overthrow of all Religion! And whether as you argue thus, Trot eft ants differ in many things , therefore they have no certainty of any thing : So an Atheiit or a Sceptick may not conclude as well, Chrifti- ans, and the Profeflors of all Religions differ in many things, therefore they have no certainty of any thing ? Again, I Ihould deiire you to tell me ingenuoufly, whe- ther it be not too probable that your portentous Do&rine of Tranfub(tantiation,joyn'd with your forementiond per- fuafion of, No Papifts no Chriftians^ hath brought a great many others as well as himfelf, to Averroes\ refolution, Quandocfuidem Chriftiani adorant quod comedunt, Jit amma mea cum Philofophis ? Forafmuch as the Chrifttans worship that which they eat> let my Soul be with the Philofophers. Whether your requiring men upon only probable and Prudential motives, to yield a moft certain ajj'ent unto things in humane reafon impoffible, and telling them, as you do too often, that they were as good not believe at all, as believe with any lower degree of Faith, be not a like- ly way to make confidering men fcorn your Religion, (and confequently all, if they know no other J as requi- ring things contradictory, and impoffible to be perform- ed? Laftly, Whether your pretence that there is no goo^ ground to believe Scripture, but your Churches infallibili- ty, joyn'd with your pretending no ground for this but fome Texts of Scripture, be not a fair way to make them that underftand themfelves, believe neither Church nor Scripture? 9. Your Calumnies againft Protectants in general are fet down in thefe words, Chap. a. §. 2. The very dotlrine The Preface to the Author of Charity maintain d of Prctejtants, if it be ftllowed clofely, and with coherence to i* fetf> ™ufc of necejfity induce Socinianifm. This I fay confidently , and evidently prove, by instancing in one Error, which way well be termed the Capital and Mother-herefie, from which all ether mufi follow at eafe ; I mean, their Here- fie in affirming that the perpetual vifible Church of Chrijt, de- fended by a never interrupted SucceJJion from our Saviour to this day, is not infallible mall that it propofieth to be believed as revealed truths. For if the Infallibility of fiuch a publick Authority be once impeached ; what remains, but that every man is given over to his own wit and dif courfe ? and talk not here of holy Scripture, for if the true Church may err, in defining what Scriptures be Canonical ; or in delivering the fenfie and mean- ing thereof, we are fill devolved, either upon the private Spi- rit (a foolery now exploded out of England, which finally leav'mg every man to his own conceits, ends in Socinianimi) or elfe epon natural wit and judgment,/^ examining and de- termining what Scriptures contain true or falfe Doctrine, and in that refpeSt ought to be received or rejected. And indeed, takeaway the authority of Gods Church, no man can be aJJ ti- red, that -any one Book or parcel of Scripture was written by Divine Inspiration; or that all the Contents are infallibly true, •which are the direel Errors of Socinians. If it werej?ut for this reafion alone, no man, who regards the eternal falv at ion of his Soul, wtuld live or die in Proteftancy, from which, fo vaft abfiurdities as thefe of the Socinians mufi inevitably follow. And it ought to be an unfipeakable comfort to all m Catholicks, while we confider, that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church, but jointly he mufi be left to his own wit and ways, and mufi abandon all infufed Faith and true Religion, if he do but under fit and himfielf aright. In all which Difcourie, the only true word you ipeak, is, This I fiay confidently : As for proving evidently, that I be- lieve you referved for ibme other opportunity : for the prefent J am fure you have been very (paring of it. 10. You fay indeed confidently enough, that the de- ny at of the Churches infallibility is the Mother-herefie, from which all other mufi follow at eafe ; which is fo far from being with an anfwer to his Directions to N. N. being a neceflary truth, as you make it, that it is indeed a manifeft fallhood. Neither is it poflible for the wit of man by any good, or fb much as probable confequence, from the denial of the Churches Infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient Herefies, or anyone Error of the Socimans, which are the Herefies here entreated of: For who would not laugh at him that mould argue thus, Nei- ther the Church of Rome, nor any other Church is in- fallible, Ergo, The Doctrine of Arrim, Vtlagms, Eutyches, Nejloriusy Yhotinm, Manich&us, was true Do&rine ? On the other fide, it may be truly fold, and juftificd by very good and effectual reafon, that he that affirms with you the Popes Infallibility, puts himfelf into his hands and power to be led by him at his eafe and plealiire into all Herefie, and even to Hell it (elf, and cannot with reafon fay, (fb long as he is conftant to his grounds) Domine cur it a facts ? Sir, Why do you thus? but muft believe white to be black, and black to be white ; 'vertue to be 'vice, and 'vice to be vertue ; nay ( which is a horrible, but a mod certain truth) Chrift to be Antichrift, and Antichrift to be Chrift, if it be poflible for the Pope to fay fo : Which I fay and will maintain, howfbever you daub and difguife it, is indeed to make men apoftate from Chrift ' to his pretended Vicar, but real Enemy : For that name, and no better, (if we may fpeak truth without offence) I pre- fiime he deferves, who under pretence of interpreting the Law of Chrift, (which Authority, without any word of exprefs warrant, he hath taken upon himfelf) doth in many parts evacuate and diffolve it : So dethroning Chrift from his dominion over mens conferences, and inftead of Chrift fetting up himfelf. In as much as he that re- quires that his Interpretations of any Law mould be obey- ed as true and genuine, feem they to mens underftand- mgs never fb diflbnant and difcordant from it, (as the Biihop of Rome does J requires indeed that his Interpreta- tions mould be the Laws ; and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all fuch Interpretations without judging of them, and though to his private judg- ment they feem unreafbnable, is indeed congruoufly dil- pofed The Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained, pofed to hold Adultery a venial fin, and Fornication no fin, whenibever the Pope and his adherents mall fb de- clare. And whatfbever he may plead, yet either witting- ly or ignorantly he makes the Law and the Law-maker both ftales, and obeys only the Interpreter. As if I mould fubmit to the Laws of the King of England, but fhould indeed refblve to obey them in that fence which the King of France fhould put upon them whatfbever it were ; I pre fume every underftanding man would fay that I did indeed obey the King of France and not the King of England. If I mould pretend to believe the Bi- ble, but that I would underftand it accordingly to the ienfe which the chief Mufty fhould put upon it, who would not fay that I were a Chriftian in pretence only, but indeed a Mahumetan ? 1 1. Nor will it be to purpofe for you to pretend that the precepts of Chrift are fo plain that it cannot be feared, that any Pope fhould ever go about to diflblve them and pretend to be a Chriftian: For, not to fay that you now pretend the contrary, (to wit J, that the Law of Chrift X obfeure, even in things necejj'arj to be believed and done ; and by faying fb,have made a fair way for any foul interpreta- tion of any part of it : certainly that which the Church of Rome hath already done in this kind, is an evident ar- gument, (that if fhe once had this Power unqueftioned and made expedite and ready for ufe, by being contracted to the Pope ) fhe may do what fhe pleafeth with it. Who that had Jived in the Primative Church, would not have thought it as utterly improbable, that ever they fhould have brought in the Worfhip of Images and Picturing of God, as now it is that they mould legitimate Fornication? Why may we not think they may in time take away the whole Communion from the Laity, as well as they have taken away half of it ? Why may we not think that any Text and any fenfe may not be accorded, as well as the whole 14. Ch. of the Ep. of S. Paul to the Corinth, is re- conciled to the Latine fervice ? How is it poffible any thing fhould be plainer forbidden, than the IVorfJrip of An- gels, in the Ep. to the Coloffians ? than the teaching for Do- tlrines with an Anfwer to his D ire B ion to N. N. Brines Mens commands in the Gofpel of S. Mark ? And therefore feeing we fee thefe things done which hardly any man would have believed, that had not feen them, why mould we not fear that this unlimited Power may not b? ufed hereafter with as little moderation ? Seeing devices have been invented how Men may worfhip Ima- ges without Idolatry, and Kill Innocent Men under pre- tence of Herefie without Murther, who knows not that fbme tricks may not be hereafter devifed, by which lying with other Mens Wives mail be no Adultery, taking away other Mens Goods no Theft? I conclude therefore, that if Solomon himfelf were here, and were to determine the difference, which is more likely to be Mother of all Here- fie, the denial of the Churches , or the affirming of the Popes Infallibility, that he would certainly fay, this is the Mother, give her the Child. 12. You fay again confidently, that if this Infallibility be once impeached, every Man is given over to his own Wit and Difcourfe : which, if you mean, Difcourfe, not guiding it felfe by Scripture, but only by principles of Nature, or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors, and drawing con- sequences not by rule but chance- is by no means true ; if you mean by Difcourfe, right reafbn, grounded on Divine revelation and common notions, written by God in the hearts of all Men, and deducing, according to the never failing rules of Logick, confequent dedu&ions from them, if this be it, which you mean by Difcourfe, it is very meet and reafonable and neceflary^ that Men, as in all their actions, fo efpecially in that of greaterr. importance, the choice of their way to happinefs, mould be left unto it : and he that follows this in all his opinions and adions, and does not only feem to do fo, follows alwaies God ; where- as he that followeth a Company of Men, may ofcimes follow a Company of Beads. And in faying this, I fay no more than S. John to all Chnftians in thefe words, Dearly beloved, Believe not every Jpirit, but try the fpirils, whether they be of God, or no : and the rule he gives them to make this tryal by, is to coniider whether they cenfefs Jefus to be the Chrifi ; that is, the Guide of cheir Faith, and C Lord io The "Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained Lord of their a&ions ; not whether they acknowledg the Tope to be his Vicar: I, fay no more than S. Taul in exhor- ting all Chriftians, to try all things and to hold fafi that which is good ; than S. Peter m commanding all Chriftians, to be ready to give a reafon of the^ hope that is in them : than our Saviour himfelf in forewarning all his followers,, that if they blindly followed blind Guides , both leaders and follow- ers Jljould fail into the Ditch ; and again in faying even to the People, Tea and why of your felves Judge ye not what is right? And though by paffion, or precipitation, or preju- dice ; by want of Reafon, or not ufing that they have, Men may be and are oftentimes led into Error and mif chief; yet that they cannot be mifguided by difcourfe tru- Iv (o called, fuch as I have defcribed, you your felf have given them fecurity. For what is difcourfe, but drawing conclufions out of premifes by good confequence? Now the principles which we have fetled, to wit, the Scriptures, are on all fides agreed to be infallibly true. And you have told us in the fourth chap, of this Pamphlet, that from truth no man can by good conference infer faljlwod' There- fore by difcourfe no Man can poflibly be led to Error : but if he Err in his conclufions, he muft of neceffity either Err in his principles, (which here cannot have place, ) or commit fome Error in his difcourfe ; that is indeed,, not difcourfe but feem to do fb. I ;. You fay thirdly, with iiifEcient confidence, that // the true Churh may Err in defining what Scriptures be Cano- nical, or in delivering the fenfe thereof then we muft follow either the private Spirit, or elfe natural wit and Judgment, and by them examine what Scriptures contain true or falfe Do- ff rine, and in that refpetl ought to be received or rejecled : All which is apparently untrue, neither can any proof of it be pretended. For though the prefent Church may pof- fibly Err in her judgment touching this matter, yet have we other Directions in it, befides the private fpirit, and the examination of the Contents, ( which latter way may conclude the negative very ftrongly, to wit, that fuch or fuch a Book cannot come from God, becaufc it contains irreconcilable contradictions, but the affirmative it 'with an Anfwer to his Direction to N. N. 1 1 it dannot conclude, becaufe the Contents of a Book may be all true, and yet the Book not written by Divine infpi- ration : ) other Dire&ion therefore I fay we have, befides either of thefe three, and that is, the Teftimony of the Primitive Chriftians. 14. You fay Fourthly, with convenient boldnefs, That this infallible Authority of your Church being denied, no man can be afjured, that any parcel of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration : Which is an untruth, for which no proof is pretended, and behdes, void of modefty and full of impiety. The firft, becaufe the experience of innumerable Chriftians is againft it, who are lufficiently allured, that the Scripture is Divinely infpired, and yet deny the infal- lible Authority of your Church or any other. The fe- cond, becaufe if I cannot have ground to be allured of the Divine Authority of Scripture, unlets I firft believe your Church infallible, then lean have no ground at all to believe it : becaufe there is no ground, nor can any be pretended, why I fhould believe your Church Infallible, unlefs I firft believe the Scripture Divine. 16. Had I a mind to recriminate now, and to charge Papifts ( as you do Proteftants ) that they lead Men to Socinianifm, I could certainly make a much fairer mew of evidence than you have done. For I would not tell you, you deny the Infallibility of the Church of England, Ergo, you lead to Socinianifm, which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this; Proteftants deny the infalli- bility of the Roman Church, Ergo, they induce Socinia- nifm : Nor would I refume my former Argument, and urge you, that by holding the Popes Infallibility, you fub- mit your felf to that Capital and Mother Herefie, by ad- vantage whereof, he may lead you at eafe to believe xw- tue vice, and vice vertne, to believe Antichriftianity Chri- ftianilm, and Chrifhanity Antichriftian ; he may lead you to Socinianifm, to Turcifm, nay, to the Divel himfelf if he have a mind to it : But I would mew you that divers ways the Doctors of your Church do the principal and proper work of the Socinians for them, undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity, by denying it to be fuppor- C x ted 12 The Preface to the Author of Charity maintain d, ted by thofe Pillars of the Faith,, which alone are fit and able to fiipport it, I mean Scripture, and the Conlent of the Ancient Doctors. • 17. For Scripture, your Men deny very plainly and fre- quently , that this Doctrine can be proved by it. See if you pleafe, this plainly taught, and urged very carneft- ly by Cardinal Hofius, De Author. Sac. Scrip. I. %.p. 53. By Gcrdoniits Huntlam, Contr.Tom. 1. Ccntrov. r. Deverbo Dei C. 19. by Gretferns and Tanertts , in Colloquio Ratesbon: And alio by Vega, Pojfevin, Wiehis, and Others. 1 8. AncJ then for the Confent of the Ancients, that that alfo delivers it not, by whom are we taught but by Pa- pifts only ? Who is it that makes known to all the World, that Eufebius that great fearcher and devourer of the Chri- ftian Libraries was an Arrian ? Is it not your great Achilles, Cardinal Perron, in his ;. Book 2. Chap, ofhis Reply to 'K.James? Who is it that informs us that Origen (who never was queftioned for any Error in this matter, in or near his time ) denyed the Divinity of the Son and the Ha- lf Ghoft ? Is it not the fame great Cardinal, in his Book of the Eucharifi againft M. du Pleffis. /. 2. cj ? Who is it that pretends that lrenaus hath faid thofe things, which he that jhould now hold, would be efteemed an Arrian ? Is it not the fame Perron in his Reply to K. James, in the Fifth Chap, of his Fourth Obfervation ? And does he not in the fame place peach Tertullian alfo, and in a man- ner give him away to the Arrians ? And pronounce ge- nerally of the Fathers before the Council of Nice, That the Arrians would gladly be tryed by them ? And are not your fellow Jefluts alio, even the Prime Men of your Order, prevaricators in this point as well as others? Doth not your Friend M. Fifher, or M. Flued in his Book of the Nine Queftions propofed to him by K. James (peak danger- oufly to the fame purpofe, in his Difcourfe of the Refo- lutim of Faith, towards the end? Giving us to underftand, That the new Reformed Arrians bring very many Tefiimo- nies of the Ancient Fathers, to prove that in this Point they did contradict themfelves, and were contrary one to another : which places whomever fliall read will clearly fee, that to common with an anfwer to his Direclion to N.N l% common People they are unanfwerable} yea3 that common Peo- ple are not capable of the Anfwer s that Learned Men' yield un- to fitch obfcure paffdjres. And hath not your great Anti- quary Petavws, in his Notes upon Epip hanurs in H*r. 69. been very liberal to the Adverfaries of the Doctrine of the Trinity, and in a manner given them for Patrons and Advocates, hrft Juftin Martyr, and then aim oft all the Fathers before the Council or A7/^, whole Speeches he fays, touching this point, cum Orthodox* fidei regula minlme ccn- fentiunt : Are no way agreeable to the rule of Orthodox E ait h. Hereunto I might add, that the Dominicans and Jefuits between them in another matter of great importance, viz. Gods Preference of future contingent s^ give the Socinians the premifes, out of which their conclufion doth unavoidably follow. For the Dominicans maintain on the one Side, that God can forefee nothing but what he Decrees : The Jefuits on the other Side, that he doth not Decree all things : And from hence the Socinians conclude (as it is obvious for them to do ) that he doth not forefee all things. Laftly, I might adjoyn this, that you agree with one content, and little for a rule unqueftionable, that no part of Re- ligion can be repugnant to Realbn, whereunto you in particular fubfenbe unawares in faying, From truth no Man can by good confluence infer falflwod, which is to fay in effect, that Realbn can never lead any Man to Error : And after you have done fb, you proclaim to all the World (as you in this Pamphlet do very frequently,) that if Men follow their Reafon and Difcourfe, they will (if they underftand themlelves) be led to Socmiamfm. And thus you fee with what probable matter I might furnifh out and juftifie my accusation, if I fhould charge you with leading Men to Socinianifm ! Yet I do not conceive that I have ground enough for this odious imputation. And much lefs mould you have charged Proteftants with, it, whom you confefs to abhor and deteft it : and who fight againft it, not with the broken Reeds, and out of the Paper Fortreffes of an imaginary Infallibility, which were only to make fport for their Adverfaries ; but with the Sword of the Spirit > the Word of God : of which we may fay I 4 ' The "Preface to the Author of Charity maintain* J9 fay mod truly, what David fiid of Goliatis Swords of- fered him by Abilech, non eft ficut ifte, There is none corn- far able to it. 19. Thus Vroteftants ii\ general, I hope, are Efficient- ly vindicated from your Calumny : I proceed now to do the fame fervice for the Divines of England; whom you queftion firft in point of Learning and Sufficiency, and then in point of Conference and Honefty, as prevaricat- ing in the Religion which they profefs, and inclining to Popery. Their Learning (you lay) confifts only in fome fuperficial Talent of Preaching, Languages, and Elocution, and not in any deep knowledg of Philofophy , efpecially of Metaphyficks, and much left of that mofi folid, profitable, fub- tile, & (O rem ridiculam Cato & jocofam ! ) fuccincl me- thod of School Divinity. Wherein you have difcovered in your felf the true Genius and Spirit of detraction. For taking advantage from that wherein envy it felf cannot deny but they are very eminent, and which requires great fufficiency of fiibftantial Learning, you difparage them as infufficient in all things elfe. As if Forfooth, becaufe they difpute not eternally. Utrum Chimera bombinans in vacuo, pojjit comedere Jecundas Intentiones ? Whether a Million of Angels may not fit upon a Needles point ? Becaufe they fill not their Brains with notions that fignifie nothing, to the utter extermination of all reafbn and common fence, and fpend not an Age in weaving and un-weaving fubtile Cobwebs, fitter to catch Flies than Solus ; therefore they have no deep knowledge in the Acroamatical part of Learning ! But I have too much honoured the poornefs of this detraction to take notice of it. 20. The other Part of your accufation ftrikes deeper, and is more considerable : And that tells us that, Prote- ftantifm waxeth weary of it felf\ that the Profeffors of it, they efpecially of great eft Worthy Learning, and Authority , love temper and moderation : and are at this time more unrefolved where to f aft en, than at the Infancy of their Church : That their Churches begin to look with a New Face : Their Walls to Speak a New Language : Their DocJrine to be altered in many things , for which their Progenitors forfook the then Vifible 'with an anfwer to his Directions to N.N 15 Vifible Church of Chrift : For example, the Pope not Anti- chrift : Prayer for the Dead : Limbus Patrum : Futures : That the Church hath Authority in determining Controverfies of Faith, and to interpret Scripture ; about Freewd, Predeftma- tion, Univerfal Grace : That all our Works are not Sins : Merit of good Works : Inherent Juftice : Faith alone doth not jufiifie : Charity to be preferred before knowledg : Tradi- ■ tions : Commandments pojfible to be kept : That their thirty nine Articles are patient, nay ambitious of fome fence wherein they may feem Catholick : That to Aliedge the necefjity of Wife and Children in thefe days, is but a weak Plea for a Married Minijier to compafs a Benefice : That Calvinifm k at length accounted Here fie , and little lefs than Treajon : That Men in Talk and Writing ufe willingly the once fearful Names of Pr lefts and Altars : That they .are now put in mmdy that for expofition of Scripture, they are by Canon bound to follow the Fathers : which if they do with fincerity, it is eafie « to tall ivhat Doom will pafi againft Protectants ; feeing by the confeffion of Proteftants, the Fathers are on the Papifts fide, which the Anfwerer to fome fo clearly demonftrated, that they remained convinced : In fine, as the Samaritans/^ in the Difciples countenances, that they meant to go to Hiemfalem, fo you pretend it is even legible in the Fore-heads of thefe Men, that they are even going, nay making haft to Rome. Which icurnlous Libel void of all Truth, Difcretion and Honefty, what effect it may have wrought, what credit it may have gained with credulous Papifts, ( who dream what they de- iire, and believe their own dreams, J or with ill-affeded, jealous, and weak Proteftants, I cannot tell : But one thing I dare boldly fay, that you your felf did never be- lieve it. pi. The truth is,they that run toextreamsin opposition againft you, they that pull down your Infallibility and fet up their own, they that declaim againft your Tyran- ny, and exercife it themfelves over others, are the Ad- versaries that give you the greateft advantage, and fuch as you love to deal with : whereas urx>n Men of tem- per and moderation, fuch as will oppoie nothing becaufe you maintain it, but will draw as near to vou^ that they • ^ may: 1 6 The "Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained, may draw you to them,, as the Truth will fiifFer them : inch as require of Chriftians to believe only in Chrift, and will Damn no Man nor Do&rine without exprefs and certain warrant from Gods Word : upon fuch as thefe you know not how to fatten ; but if you chance to have conference with any fuch, (which yet as much as poffi- bly you can you avoid and decline^) you are very fpee- dily put to filence, and fee the indefenfible weaknefs of vour caufe laid open to all Men. And this I verily be- lieve is the true Reafon that you thus rave and rage againft them, as fore feeing your time of prevailing, or even of fubfifting, would be Ihort, if other adverfaries gave you no more advantage than they do. 21. In which perfwafion alfb lam much confirmed by consideration of the Sillinefs and Poornefs of thole fiig- geftions, and partly of the apparent vanity and Falihood of them, which you offer in juftification of this wicked Calumny. For what if out of Devotion towards God ; out of a defire that He ftiould be Worshiped as in Spirit and Truth in the firft place, fo alfb in the Beauty of Ho- linefi? what if out of fear, that too much Simplicity and Nakednefs in the publick Service of God may beget in the ordinary fort of Men a dull and ftupid irreverence, and out of hope that the outward State and Glory of it, being well difpofed and wifely moderated, may ingender, quicken., encreafe and nouriihthe inward reverence, re- ipe6t and devotion which is due unto Gods Sovereign Majefty and Power ? What if out of a perfuaiion and de- iire that Papfts may be won over to us the fboner, by the removing of this Scandal out of their way ; and out of an Holy Jealqufie, that the weaker fort of Trot eft ants might be the eafier (educed to them by the Magnifi- cence and Pomp of their Church-fervice in cafe it were not removed ? I fay, what if out of thefe conhderations, the Governors of our Church, more of late than former- ly, have fet themfelves to adorn and beautifie the places -where Gods Honour dwells, and to make them as Heaven- ly as they can with Earthly Ornaments ? Is this a fign that they are jvarping towards Popery ? Is this Devotion %• in with an Anfwtr to his Direction to N. N. 1.7 in the Church of England, an argument. that She is com- ing over to the Church of Rome ? Sir Edwin Sands, I prefume every Man will grant, had no inclination that way ; yet He Forty Years iince highly commended this part of Devotion in Papifts, and makes no fcruple of propofing it to the imitation of Proteftants : little thinking that they who would follow his Counfel, and endeavour to take away this difparagement of Vrotefiants, and this Glorying of Papifts, lliould have been cenfured for it, as making way and inclining to Popery. His Words to this purpoie are excellent Words, and becaufe they mew plain- ly, that what is now pra&iled was approved by Zealous Survey of Prot eft ants (b long ago, I will here fet them down. Religion, 1 3 , This one thing J cannot but highly commend in that fort and Order : They [pare nothing which either cofi can per- form in enriching, or skill in adorning the Temple of God, or to fet out his Service with the greateft Pomp and magnificence that can be devifed. And although, fcr the moft part, much Bafenejs and Childiflmefs is predominant in the Mafters and contrivers of their Ceremonies, yet this outward State and Glory being well difpo/ed , doth mgender, quicken , increafe, and nouriih the inward reverence, reJfiecJ and Devotion, which ts due unto Sovereign Ma] 'eft y and Power. And although lam not ignorant that many Men well reputed have embraced the thrifty Opinion of that Difciple, who thought all to be wa- fted that was beftowed upon Chrift in that fort, and that it were much better beftowed upon him on the Poor, {yet with an eye perhaps that t hem/elves would be his quarter Almoners,) notwithftanding Imuft confefs, it will never fink into my Hearty that in proportion of Reajon, the allowance for furnijhing out of the Service of God (Iwuld be meafured by the fcant and ftricl rule of meer neceftity, (a proportion fo low that Nature to other moft bountiful in matter of necefftty, hath not failed no not the moft ignoble Creatures of the World?) and that for our [elves no meafure of heaping but the moft we can get, no rule of expence but to the utmoft Pomp we lift : Or that God himftlf had fo inrtched the lower parts of the World with fuch wondtrfull varieties of Beauty and Glory, thut they might ferve only to the Pampering of Mortal Man in his Pride ; and D that 1 8 The Treface to the Author of Charity Maintained thai in the Service of the High Creator Lerd and giver, (the outward Glory of wbofe higher Tallace may appear by the very Lamps that vje fee fo far off Burning gloriouflj in it ) only the Simpler, Bafer, Cheaper, Lefs Noble, Lcfs Beautiful, Lefs Glorious things fliotdd be imployed. Effe daily feeing as in Prin- ces Courts, Jo in the Service of God alfo, this outward State and Glory, being well difpofed, doth (as I have /aid) engen- der, quicken, increafe and. nourijjj the inward reverence, refpeci and Devotion, which is due to fo Sovereign Majefiy and Tower. Which thofe whom the ufe thereof cannot perfuade unto, would eafily by the want of it be brought to confefs ; for which caufe I crave leave to be excufed by them herein, if in "Zaeal to the common Lord of all, Ichoofe rather to com- mend the vertue of an Enemy than to flatter the vice and im- becility of a Friend. And f b much for this matter. 14. Again, what if the Names of the Tnefis and Altars fo frequent m the Ancient Fathers, though not in the now Popi(h fenfe, be now refumed and more commonly ufed in England than of late times thev were : that fo the colourable argument of their conformity, which is but nominal, with the Ancient Church, and our in- conformity, which the Governors of the Church would not have (o much as nominal, may be taken away from them ; and the Church of Engla?td may be put in a State, in this regard more juftifiable againft the Roman than for- merly it was, being hereby enabled to fay to Vapid s (when- fbever thefe Names are obje&ed,) we alfo ufe the Names of Trlefis and Altars, and yet believe neither the Corpo- ral Prefence, nor any Proper and propitiatory Sacrifice ? 25. What if Protefiants be now put in mind, that for expofition of Scripture, they are bound by a Canon to fol- low the Ancient Fathers', which whofbever doth with fince- ritv, it is utterly impoffible he mould be a Paplfi? And it is moil; falfly faid by you, that you know that to fbme Trote- fiants I clearly demonftrated, or ever lb much as under- took, or wenrabout to demonftrate the contrary. What if theCenturifts be cenfured fomewhat roundly by a Prote- fiant Divine for affirming, that the keeping of the Lords day was a thing indifferent for two Hundren Tears ? Is there in all with an Anfwer to his Direction to N. N. 19 all this or any part of it any kind of proof of this (can- dalous Calumny ? 16. As for the points of Doctrine wherein you pretend that thefe Divines hegin of late to falter, and to com- ply with the Church of Rome, upon a due examination of particulars it will prefently appear, Firfl, that part of them always have been, and now are held conftantly one way by them ; as the Authority of the Church in determi- ning Controversies of Faith, though not the Infallibility of it : That there is Inherent Juftice, though fo imperfect. that it cannot juftifie : That there are Traditions, though none neceflary : That Chanty is to be preferred before knowledg : That good Works are not properly meritori- ous : And laflly, that Faith alone juftihes, though that Faith juftifies not which is alone. And Secondly, for the remainder that they, every one of them, have been Anci- ently without breach of Charity difputed among Prote- ctants, fuch for example were the Queftions about the Popes being the Antichnft, the Lawfulncfs of fome kind of 'Prayers for the Dead, the Eftate of the Fathers Souls, before Chrifts Afcenfion ; Freewil, Predeftination, Uni- verlal Grace : the Poffibility of keeping Gods Command- ments. The ufe of Pictures in the Church : Wherein that there hath been anciently diverfity of opinion anongft Protefiants, it is juilified to my hand by a witnefs, with you,. beyond exception, even your great Friend M. Brere- ly, whofe care, exaclnefs and fidelity ( you fay in your Pre- face) is fo extraordinary great. Coniult him therefore: Tract. 3. Seel. 7. of his Apology : And in the 9, 10, 1 1. 14. 14.16. 17. 37. Subdivisions of that Setlion, you fhaU fee as in a mirror, your (elf proved an egregious calumniator, for charging Protefiants with innovation and inclining to Po- pery, under pretence forfboth, that their Doctrine begins of late to be altered in thefe points. Whereas, M Brcrely will inform you, they have been anciently, and even from the beginmng of the Reformation, controverted amongft them, though perhaps the Stream and Current of their Doctors run one way, and only fbme Brook or Rivulet of them the other. D 1 17. It 10 The Preface to the Author of Charity maintain d> 27. Ic remains now in the laft place, that I bring my 1 elf fairly off* from your foul Afperiions, that (b my Per- ion may not be any difparagement to the Caufe, nor any fcandal to weakChriftians. i8.Firft upon Hearfay,you charge me with a great num- ber of falfeand impiousDoch'ines,whichI will not name in particular, becaufe I will not affift vou fo far in the fpread- ing of my own undeferved defamation : but whome- ver teaches or holds them let him be Anathema ! The Summ of them all is this, Nothing ought or can be certainly believed, farther than it may be proved by evidence of NaturalReafon : (where I conceive Natural reafbn it oppofed to (uperna- tural RevelationJ and wholbever holds (6 let him be Ana- tbemal And moreover to clear my felfonce for all, from all imputations of this nature, which charge me injuri- oufly with denial of Supernatural Verities, I profefs fin- cerely, that I believe all thofe Books of Scripture, which the Church of England accounts Canonical, to be the Infallible Word of God : I believe all things evidently contained in them ; all things evidently, or even probably deducible from them : I acknowledge all that to be He- refie, which by the Ad of Parliament primo of ^ El i 7.. is declared to be lb, and only to be fb : And though in f uch points which may be held diverfly of divers menfalvd Fidei ccmpage, I would not take any Mans Liberty from him,and numbly befeech all men,that they would not take mine from me ! Yet thus much I can fay (which iTiope will fatisfie any man of reafon, ) that whatfbever hath been held neceflary to Salvation,either by the Catholick Church of all ages, or by the confent of Fathers, meafured by Vmcentius Lyrinenfis his rule, or is held neceflary either by the Catholick Church of this age, or by the confent of Troteftants, or even by the Church of England jihit, againft the Sccinians, and all others whatfbever, I do verily be- lieve and embrace. 29. But what are all Perfonal matters to the bufinefs in hand ? If it could be proved that Cardinal BeHarmine was indeed a Jew, or that Cardinal Perron was an Atheifiy yet I prefume you would not accept of this for an Aniwer to wuhan anfwer to his Direction to N.N. II to all their writings in defence of your Religion. J,et then my actions and intentions and opinions be what they will, yet I hope truth is neverthelefs Truth, nor reafon ever the lefs Reafon becaufe I fpeak it. And therefore the Chriftian Reader, knowing that his Salvation or Dam- nation depends upon his impartial and fin cere judgment of thefe things, will guard himfelf I hope from thete Im< poftures, and regard not the Perfon but the caufe and the reafbns of it ; not who fpeaks but what is fpoken : Which is all the favour I deiirc of him, as knowing that I am defirous not to peifuade hini, unlefs it be truth whereunto I perfuade him. 30. The laft Accufation is, That I anfwer out of Prin- ciples which Proteftants themj elves will profefs to detefl : whch indeed were to the purpofe if it could be juftified. But, befides that it is confuted by my whole Book, and made ridiculous by the Approbations premifed unto it, it is ve- ry eafie for me out of your own Mouth and Words to prove k a moft injurious calumny. For what one Con- clufion is there in the whole Fabrick of my Difcourfe, that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle, That all things necejj'ary to Salvation are evidently contained in Scripture ? Or what one Conclufion almoft of impor- tance is there in your Book , which is not by this one clearly confutable ? Grant this, and it will prefently fol- low in opposition to your firft Conclufion, and the ar- gument of your firft Ch : that amongft men of different opinions, touching the obfcure and controverted Qiiefti- ons of Religion, fuch as may with probability be difputed on both Sides (and fuch as are the difputes of Froteftants;) Good men. and lovers of truth of all Sides may be faved; becaufe all neceffary things being fuppofed evident, con- cerning them, with men (b qualified, there will be no difference : There being no more certain fign that a Point is not evident, than that honefl and under/landing and indifferent men, and fuch as give themfejves liberty , of judgment, after a mature coniideration of the mat- ter differ about it, 31. Grant S£j Tfje Vreface to the Author of Charity maintain d, ;i. Grant this, and it will appear. Secondly, that the means whereby the revealed Truths of God arc convey- ed to our underftandmg, and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith, neceflary to be determined, may be, for any thing you have faid to the contrary, not a Church but the Scripture ; which contradids the Doctrine of your Second Chapter. 2,2. Grant this, and the difrinclion of points Funda- mental and not Fundamental, will appear very good and pertinent. For thofe truths will be Fundamental, which are evidently delivered in Scripture, and commanded to be Preached to all men ; Thofe not Fundamental which areobfcure. And nothing will hinder, but that the Ca- tholick Church may Err in the latter kind of the faid points : becauie Truths not neceflary to the Salvation, cannot be neceflary to the being of a Church ; and be- caufe it is not abfblutely neceflary that God mould aflift his Church any farther than to bring Her to Salvation ; neither will there be any necefltty at all of any Infallible Guide, either to confign unwritten Traditions, or to de- clare the obfeurities of the Faith. Not for the former end,be caufe this Principle being granted true, nothing unwritten can be neceflary to be configned. Nor for the latter, be- caufe nothing that is obfeure can be neceflary to be un- derftood, or not miftaken. And fb the difcourfe of your whole Third Chap : will prefently vanifh. ;;. Fourthly , for the Creed's containing the Funda- mentals of fimple belief, though I fee not how it may be deduced from this principle, yet the granting of this plain- ly renders the whole difpute touching the Creed necefla- ry. For if all neceflary things of all forts, whether of fimple belief or praence be confefled to be clearly con- tained in Scripture, what imports it whether thofe of one lbrt be contained in the Creed ? 2,4. Fifthly , let this be granted, and the immediate Corollary m oppofition to your Fifth Chap, will be and muft be, That, not Proteftants for rejecting, but the Church of Rome for impohng upon the Faith of Chnfti- ans, Dodnnes unwritten and unneceflary, and for di- sturbing with an anfwzr to his Din St ions to N.N. l% fturbing the Churches Peace,and dividing Unity for fitch nutters,is in a high degree prefumptuous and Schifmatical. ?f. Grant this, fixthly, and it will follow unavoidably that Protefiants cannot poffibly be Hereticks, feeing they believe all things evidently contained in Scripture, which are fuppofed to be all that is neceflary to be believed : and 10 your Sixth Chapter is clearly confuted. 36. Grant this Laftly, and it will be undoubtedly con- fequent, in contradiction of your Seventh Chapter, that no Man can (hew more Charity to himfelf than by contin- uing a Proteftant, feeing Vroteflants are fuppofed to believe, and therefore may accordingly practice, at lead by their Religion are not hindered from pradifing and performing all things neceflary to Salvation. 37. So that the pofition of this one Principle, is the direct overthrow of your whole Book, and therefore I needed not, nor indeed have I made ufe of any other. Now this principle, which is not only the Corner-frone or chief Pillar, but even the bale, and adequate Foundation of my Anfwer;and which while it ftands firm and immov- able, cannot but be the fupporter of my Book, and the certain ruin of yours, is fb far from being, according to your pretence, detefted by all Protefia?its3 that all Prote- fiants whatfoever, as you may fee in their Harmony of Confeffions, unanimoufly profeis and maintain it. And you your felf, C. 6. § 30. plainly confefs as much, in fay- ing, Tloe whole Edifice of the Faith of Proteftants is fetled en thefe two Principles : The/e particular Books are Canonical Scripture : And the fenfe and meaning of them is plain and c- •vident at leaft in all points neceflary to Salvation. ;8. And thus your Venom againfl me is in a manner fpent, faving only that there remain two little imperti- nences, whereby you would dilable me from being a fit advocate for the caufe of Protefiants. The firit, becaufe I refu(e to fubfenbe the Artie, of the Ch. of England : The fecond, becaufe I havefet down in writing, motives which fbmetime induced me to forfake Proteftantiim, and hi- therto have not anfwered them. 39. By ^4 ThefFreface to the Author of Charity Maintained, 39. By the former of which obje&ions it fhould feem, that either you conceive the 39 Articles the common Do- drrine of all Proteftants, and if they be, why have you lb often upbraided them with their many and great diffe- rences? Or eUethat it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England, and not the common cauie of ail Frotefiants, which is here undertaken by me : which are certainly ve- ry grofs milrakes. And vet, why he who makes lei uple of fiibfcribing the truth of one or two Propofitions, may not yet be fit enough to maintain., that thofe who do fiib- icribe them, are in a faveable condition, I do not under- Hand. Now though I hold not the Do&nne of all Frote- fiants ablblutely true, (which with reafbn cannot be re- quired of me while they hold contradictions,; yet I hold it free from all impiety, and from all Error deftru&ive of Salvation, or fn it felf damnable : And this I think in rea- lon may lufficiently qualifie me, for a maintainer of this aflertion, that Frotefrancy defircys not Salvation. For the Church of England, I am perfiiaded that the conftant Do- ctrine of it is ib pure and Orthodox, that whoioever be- lieves it and lives according to it, undoubtedly he mail be faved ; and that there is no Error in it which may necef- fitate or warrant any Man to difturb the peace or re- nounce the Communion of it. This in my opinion is all intended by Subfcription, and thus much if you con- ceive me not ready to fublcribe, your Charity I allure you is much mistaken. 40. Your other Objection is yet more impertinent and frivolous than the former: Unlefs perhaps it be a juft ex- ception againft a Phylitian; that himfelf was fbmetimes in, and recovered himfelf from that Difeafe which he un- dertakes to cure ; or againlr a Guide in a way, that at rirft before he had experience, himfelf miftook it, and afterwards found his error and amended it. That noble writer Michael de Montaigne, was (urely of a far different mind ; for he will hardly allow any Phyfitian competent, but only for (uch Dilealcs as himfelf had palled through: And a far greater than Montaigne, even he that laid, Tu eonverfm confirma fratres, when thou art converted, firengthen thy 'with an Anfwer to his Direction to N. N. 1$ hy Brethren, gives us diffidently to underftand, that they which have themfelves been in ftich a Hate as to need Converfion, are not thereby made incapable of, but ra- ther engaged and obliged unto, and qualified for this Charitable Function. 41. The Motives then, hitherto not anfwered,wrere thefe 42. I. Becaufe perpetual vifible profeffion, which could never he wanting to the Religion of Chrijt, nor any part of it, is ap- parently wanting toV roteftant Religion, fo far as concerns the points in conteftation. II. Becaufe Luther and his followers, feparatmg from the Church of Rome, feparated alfo from all Churches, pure or impure, true or falfe then being in the world ; upo?i which ground I conclude, that either Gods promifes did fail of per- formance, if there were then no Church in the World, which held all things neceffary, and nothing repugnant to Salvation ; or elfe that Luther and his Sectaries , feparatmg from all Churches then in the World, and fo from the true, if there were any true, were damnable Schiimaticks. III. Becaufe, if any credit may be given to as credible records*, as any are extant, the Doclrine of Catholic ks hath been frequent- ly confirmed; and-t-he oppofite Doclrine of Proteftants, con- founded with fupernatural -and Divine Miracles. IV. Becaufe many points o/Proteftant Doclrine, are the dam- ned Opinions of Hereticks, condemned by the Primitive Church. V. Becaufe the Prophecies of the Old Teftament, touch- ing the Couverfion of Kings and Nations to the true Religion of Chrifi, have been accomplifoed in and by the Catholick Roman Religion, and the ProfeJJors of it; and not by Prote- ftant Religion, and the Profefjors of it. VI. Becaufe the Doclrine of the Church o/Rome ts conform- able, and the Doclrine of Proteftants contrary, to the Doctrine of theFathers of the PrimitiveChurch^even by the Confejfion ofPro* teftants themfe Ive s;I meanjhofe Fathers >who lived within the compafs of the firfi 600. years ; to whom Proteftants them- felves do very frequently, and very confidently appeal. VII. Becaufe the firfi pretended Reformers had. neither ex- traordinary Commiffion from God, nor ordinary Miflion from the Church, to Preach Proteftant Do&nne. E VIII. Be* a6 The Treface to the Author of Charity Maintained VIII. Becaufe Luther, to Treach againfi the Maf {which contains the moft material points now in controverfie ) was per- fuaded by reafons fuggefed to him by the Devil himfelf dif- puting with him. So himfelf profefjeth in his Book de Mifla Privata. That all men might take heed of following him> who prof eJJ'eth himfelf to follow the Devil. IX. Becaufe the Proteftant caufe ts nowy and hath been from the beginnmgj maintained with gr of efal fife at ions 3 and Calumnies • whereof their prime Controverfie writers , are no* torioufyi and in high degree guilty. X. Becaufe by denying all huma?ie Authority 3 either of Pope, or Councils, or Church , to determine Controverfies of Faith, they have abolifljed all pcffible means of fuppr 'effing Herefe3 or reforing Unity to the Church. Thele are the Motives ; now my Anfwers to them fol- low briefly and in order. 43. Tothefirft : God hath neither drecreed nor fore- told, that his true Do&rine ihould de faclo be alwaies vi- fibly profefled, without any mixture of falfhood. To the fecond : God hath neither decreed nor fore- told, that there mall be alwaies a vifible Company of Men free from all Error in it felf Damnable. Neither is it al- waies of neceffity Schifmatical to feparate from the ex- ternal Communion of a Church,though wanting nothing neceflary : For if this Church fuppofed to want nothing neceflary, require me to profefs again ft my Confcience, that I believe fbme Error, tho never lb fmall and inno- cent, which I do not believe, and will not allow me Her Communion, but upon this condition : In this cafe, the Church for requiring this condition is Schifmatical, and not I for feparating from the Church. To the third : If any credit may be given to Records far more creditable than thefe,the Do&rine of Vroteftants, that is, the Bible hath been confirmed,and the Doclnne of Tapifts, which is in many points plainly oppofiteto it,con- founded with Supernatural and Divine Miracles, which for number and Glory, out-fhine Popijli pretended Mira- cles,as much as the Sun doth an Ignis fatum3 thofe I mean which were wrought by our Saviour Chrilt and his Apo- itles, with an An fiver to his DireBion to N. N. 27 files : Now this Book, by the ConfefTion of all fides confirmed by innumerous Miracles, foretels me plainly, that in after Ages^great Signs and Wonders mall be wrought in confirmation of falle Dodrine, and that I am not to believe any Dodrine which feems to my understanding repugnant to the firft, though an Angel from Heaven mould teach it ; which were certainly as great a Miracle as any that was ever wrought in atteftation of any part of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome : But that true Doctrine ihould in all Ages have the teftimony of Mira- cles, that I am no where taught ; So that I have more rea- ion to fafpedt and be afraid of pretended Miracles, as iigns of falle .Dodrine, then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth. Befides, fitting afide the Bible, and the Tradition of it, there is as good ftory for Miracles wrought by thofe who lived and died in opposi- tion to the Doctrine of the Roman Church, (as by S. Cy- prian, Colmannm, Columbanm , Aidanus and others, ) as there is tor thoie that are pretended to be wrought by the Members of that Church. Laftly, it feems to me no ftrange thing, that God in his Juftice mould permit fome true Miracles to be wrought to delude them, who have torged io many, as apparently the Profeilbrs-of the Roman Dodrine have to abuie the World. To the Fourth : All thofe were not a Hereticks which / Scc th? aS" by Philaftru/s, Epiphanivs, or S. Auftme were put in the ^°B'JJ^ Catalogue of Hereticks. Scrip : EccUfi To the Fifth : Kings and Nations have been, and may in PbiUJlno : be Converted by Men of contrary Religions. by Petavius To the Sixth : The Dodrine oiPapifts, is confefiedby ^ if it were not choaked, and ° : blinded by Jome unruly and unmortified lufi in the will. Tie cc difference being not great between him that is wilfully blind, and incongruous, that a Man mould repent of thofe Errors wherein he Dies ; or Die in thofe whereof he repents. But it was wifely done of Him to take it for granted ; for moft certainly He could not have fpoken one word of fenfe for the confirmation of it. For feeing Troteftants believe, as well as you, Gods infinite and moft admirable perfections in himfelf, more than moft worthy of all poffible love : feeing they believe, as well as you, his infinite goodnefsto them, in Creating them of nothing ; in Creating them ac- cording to his own Image; in Creating all things for their u(e and benefit ; in itreaming down his Favours on them every moment of their Lives ; in defigning them, if they ferve him, to infinite and Eternal Happinefs ; in Redeeming them, not with corruptible things, but the Pretious Blood of his beloved Son : feeing they believe, as well as you, His infinite goodnefs, and Patience to- wards them, in expecting their Converfion ; in Wooing, Alluring, Leading, and by all means, which his Wifflom can Suggeft unto him, and Mans nature is capable of, drawing them to Repentance and Salvation : Seeing they believe thefe things as well as you, and for ought ycu know, The An fiver to the Preface. a$ know, confider them as much as you, (and if they do not, it is not their Religion, but they that are to blame,) what can hinder, but that the consideration of Gods molt infinite goodnefs to them, and their own almoft infinite wickednels againft him, Gods Spirit cooperating with them, may raife them to a true and lincere and a cordial love of God ? And ieeing ibrrow for having injured or offended the Perlbn beloved, or when we fear we may have offended him,, is the moil natural effect of true love; what can hinder, but that love which hath oftimes con- /trained them, to lay down their lives for God (which our Saviour aflures us is the nobleft Sacrifice we can of- fer, ) may produce in them an univerfal fbrrow for all their fins, both which they know they have committed, and which they fear they may have ? In which number, their being negligent, or not difpaflionate, or not unpre- judicatc enough in feeking the truth, and the effect there- of, their Errors, if they be fins, cannot but be comprizd. In a word, what mould hinder, but that, that Prayer—- Delicla ftta quis intelligit ? who can underhand his faults ? Lord clean fe thou me from my fecret fins, may be heard and accepted by God, as well from a Protefiant that Dies in fbme Errors, as from a Papift that Dies in ibme other iins 'of Ignorance, which perhaps he might more eafily have di (covered to be fins, than a Protefiant could his Errors to be Errors ? As well from a Protefiant, that held fbme Error, which (as he conceived) Gods Word and his Rea- fon, (which is alfb in fbme fort Gods Word,) led him un- to ; as rrom a Dominican, who perhaps took up his opi- nion upon truft, not becaufe he had reafbn to believe it true, but becaufe it was the opinion of his Order ; for the fame man if he had light upon another Order, would in all probability, have been of the other Opinion. For what elfe is the cauie, that generally all the Dominicans are of one Opinion, and all the Jefutts of the other ? I fay, from a Dominican who took up his Opinion upon truft ,* and that fuch an Opinion ( if we believe the writers of your OrderJ as if it be granted true, it were not a point matter, what Opinions any man held, or what actions any a £ The Anfiwer to the Preface. any man did, for the beft would be as bad as the worft, and the worft as good as the beft. And yet fuch is the partiality of your Hypocrifie, that of diiagreeing Papijh, neither ihall deny the truth teftified by God, but both miy hope for Salvation : but of difagreeing Proteftants ( though they differ in the lame thing,) one fide mutt de- ny Gods Teflimony and be incapable of Salvation. That a Dominican through culpable negligence, living and dy- ing in his Error, may repent of it, though he knows it not; or be laved though he do not : But if a Prot eft ant do the very fame thing, in the very fame point, and Die in his Error, his cafe is delperate. The Sum of all that hath been laid to this Demand is this. i. That no Er- ring Protefiant denys any truth teftified by God, under this formality, as teftified by htm ; nor which they know or believe to be teftified by him. And therefore it is a horrible Calumny in you to fay, They call Gods Veracity in oueftwn. For Gods undoubted and unqueftioned Veraci- ty, is to them the ground, why they hold all they do hold : neither do they hold any Opinion fb ftifly, but they will forgoe it rather than this one, That all which God [ays is true. z. God hath not fb clearly and plainly declared himlelf in moft of thele things which are in controverfie between Proteftants, but that an honeft man, whole heart is right to God, and one that is a true lover of God, and of his truth, may by reafbn of the conflict of contrary Reaions on both fides, very ealily, and therefore excu- iabiy miftake, and embrace Error for Truth, and reject Truth for Error. ;. If any Trot eft ant ovPapft be betray- ed into, or kept in any Error, by any fin or his will (as it is to be feared many Millions are) iuch Error is , as the caufe of it, finful and damnable : yet not excluhve of all hope of Salvation, but pardonable if difcovered, upon a particular explicite repentance ; if not difcover- ed, upon a general and implicite repentance for all Sins known and unknown : in which number all iinful Er- rors mult of neceffity be contained. 27. Ad 19. §.] To the Ninth. Wherein you are fb urgent for a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals : I an- fwer The Anfwer to the "Preface. 47 iwer almoft in your own words, that we alio ccnfrantly ge and require to have a particular Catalogue of four idamentalsj whether they be written Verities, o: un- written Tradition^, or Church Definitions ? all which, ycukv integrate the material Objed of your Faith : in a were or ail luch Points as are defined and fuffieiently proposed; fothat whofbever denys, or doubts of any of them, is certainly in the flate of damnation. A Cata- logue I (ay in particular of the PrOpofals : and tide only fbme general definition, or defcnption, under which you lurk deceitfully, of what, and what only is Sufficiently propofed : wherein yet vou do not verv well agree. For many of you hold the Popes Propoial Ex Cathedra, to be ver^tfo^Opi- fufficient and obliging : Some a Council without a Pope : njot^ among Some, of neither of them t eve rally, but only both toge- you, touching ther : Some not this neither in matter of manners , this matter, it which Bellarm'me acknowledges, and tells us ic is all one anyrandoubt in effe&, as if they denyed it fufficient in matter of Faith : rea^pr^J^ Some not in matter of Faith, neither think this Propoial c)ls picus Mi- Infallible, without the acceptation of the Church Univer- randula in I. lal : Some deny the Infallibility of the Preient Church, Theorem, in and only make the Tradition of all Ages the Infallible ffpoJl';tlT^ Propounder. Yet if you were agreed what and what only ^ Walden- is the Infallible Propounder, this would not fatisfie us ; nor Jis. Tom. 3. De yet to lay, that All is Fundamental which u propounded fuf Sacramentali- ficitntly by him. For though agreeing in this, yet you £«*• dott. 3. might itill difagree whether fuch or fuch a Doclrtne wCq!.\?{ ^J'C propounded or not : or if propounded ', whether fuffieiently, ^^" fhrisned th it I only insufficient ly. And it is fb known a thing, that in have done you many points you do lb, that I allure my felf you will no injury. not deny it. Therefore we conftantly urge and require a particular and perfect Inventory of allthefe Divine Re- velations, which you lay are fuffieiently propounded, and that fuch a one to which aU of your Church will fubjcribe as neither redundant, nor deficient ; which when you give in with one hand, you (hall receive a particular Catalogue of fuch Points as I call Fundamental with the other. Neither may you think me unreafonable in this demand, (eeing upon luch a particular Catalogue of your fufficient Propoials as 48 The Anfwer to the Treface. as much depends, as upon a particular Catalogue of our Fundamentals. As for example. Whether or no a man do not Err in fbme point defined and fufficiently propofed : and whether or no thofe that differ among you, differ in Fundamentals ; which if they do One Heaven (by your own RuleJ cannot receive them All. Perhaps you will here com- plain, that this is not to fatisfie your demand, but to a- void it, and to put you off as the Areopagites did hard Cauies ad diem kngijf;mum,anc\ bid you come again a Hun- dred Years hence : To deal truly, I did [o intend it mould be. Neither can you fay, my dealing with you is inju- rious, feeing I require nothing of you, but that, what you require of others, you mould (hew it poflible to be done, and juft and neceflary to be required. For, for my part, I have great reafbn to fufped:, it is neither the one nor the other. For whereas the Verities which are deli- vered in Scripture, may be very fitly divided into fuch as were written becaufe they were neceJJ'ary to be believed, Of which rank are thofe only which conftitute and make up the Covenant between God and Man in Chnft : and then fuch as are neceJJ'ary to be believed not in themselves but only by accident , becaufe they were written. Of which rank are many matters of Hiflory, of Prophecy, of Myftery, of Policy, of Oeconomy, and fuch like, which are evi- dently not intrinfecal to the Covenant Now to fever ex- actly and pun&ally thefe Verities one from the othenwhat is neceflary in it [elf and antecedently to the writing, from what is but only profitable in it felf, and neceJJ'ary only be- caufe written, is a bufinefs of extream great difficulty, and extream little neceffity. For firft he that will go about to diftinguifh efpecially in the ftory of our Saviour, what was written becaufe it was profitable, from what was writ- ten becaufe neceJJ'ary, fhall find an intricate peice of buif- nels of it, and almoft impoihble that he fhould be cer- tain he hath done it, when he hath done it. And then it is apparently unneceflary to go about it, feeing he that believes all, certainly believes all that is neceflary. And he that doth not believe all ( I mean all the undoubted pai cs of the undoubted Books of Scripture ) can hardly believe The Anfwer to the Preface. 49 believe any, neither have we reafbn to believe he doth Co. So that, that Trot eft ants give you not a Catalogue of Fun- damentals, it is not from Tergiverfation ( as you fiifped:, who for want of Chanty to them always fufped the worft, ) but from Wifdom and Neceffity. For they may very eafily Err in doing it ; becaufe though all which is neceffary be plain in Scripture, yet all which is plain is not therefore written becaufe it was neceilary. For what greater neceffity was there that I mould know S. Paul left his Cloak at Troas, than thofe Worlds of Miracles, which our Saviour did, which were never written. And when they had done it, it had been to no purpofe ; There being as matters now ftand, as great neceffity, of believ- ing thofe truths of Scripture, which are not Fundamen- tal, as thofe that are. You fee then what reafbn we have to decline this hard labour, which you a rigid Task- matter have here put upon us. Yet inftead of giving you a Ca- talogue of Fundamentals, with which I dare fay you are refblved before it come, never to be fatisfied, I will fay that to you, which if you pleafe may do you as much fcr- vice ; and this it is. That it is fiifficient for any Mans Salvation that he believe the Scripture : That he endea- vour to believe it in the true fenfe of it, as far as con- cerns his Duty : And that he conform his Life unto it either by Obedience or Repentance. He that does fb (and all Proteftants according to the Diclamen of their Religion mould do fo,) may be fecure that he cannot Err Fundamentally. And they that do fb cannot differ in Fundamentals. So that notwithstanding their diffe- rences, and your prefumption, the fame Heaven may re- ceive them AH. 18. Ad 20. £. ] Your Tenth and lafl requeft is, to know difttnclly what is the Doclrine of the Proteftant Englifi Church, in thefe points ; and what my private Opinion. Which mail be fatisfied when the Church of England hath ex- prefTed her felf in them ; or when you have told us what is the Do&rine of your Church, in the Queftion of Pre- determination, or the Immaculate Conception. H 19. Ad 50 The An fiver to the "Preface, &C. 19. Ad n . and 11. §.] Thefe anfwers I hope in the judg- ment or indifferent men are fatisfa&ory to your Queftions though not to you, For I have either anfwered them, or given you a reafbn why I have not. Neither, for ought I can fee, have I flitted from things confidered in their own nature, to accidental or rare Circumftances, But told you my Opinion plainly what I thought of your Errors in themfelves : and what as they were qualified or maligni- ried with good or bad Circumftances. CHAP. I. The ANSWER to the Firft CHAPTER. Shewing that the Adverfary grants the Old Queftion and propofeth a New one. And that there is no reafon, why among Men of different Opinions and Communions, one Side only can be faved. 1. A D 1. §. ] Trot eft ants are here accufed of uncharit- -Zjl ablenels while they accule you of it : and you make good this charge in this manner. Proteftants charge the Roman Church with many and great Errors, judge recon- ciliation of their Doclrine and ours impojfible, and that for them who are convicted in Confcience of her Errors, not to for- fake her in them, or to be reconciled unto her, is x damnable. Therefore if Roman Catholicks be convicted in Ccnfcience of the Errors of Proteftants, they may and muft judge a recon- ciliation with them damnable, and consequently, to judge fo is no more uncharitable in them, than a ts in Proteftants to judge as they do. CHIL. All this I grant; nor would any Froteftant ac- cufe ?ou of want of Charity if you went no further, if you be perfwaded in Conference that our Religion is erroneous, the profeffion of it, though in it felf moft true, to you would be damnable. For it is no unchanta- blenefs to judge Hypocrifie a damnable Sin. Let Hypo- crite then and Diflemblers on both Sides pafs. It is not towards Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftants. 5 1 towards them, but good Chriftians ; not to Protefiant Pro- feflbrs but Believers that wc require your Charity. What think you of thofe that believe lb verily the truth of our Religion, that they are refblved to Die in it, and if occafian were to Die for it? What Chanty have you for them ? What think you of thofe that in the Days of our Fathers, laid down their Lives for it ? are you content that they ihall be faved, or do you hope they may be fo r Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errors, there is good hope they might Die with Repentance ? and if they did lb, certainly they are faved. If you will do fo, this Controverfie is ended. No man will hereafter charge you with want of Charity. This is as much as either we give you, or exped of you, while you remain in your Religion. But then you mud leave abufing filly People, with telling them (as your fifhion is) that Protefiants con- fefs Papifts may be faved, but Papifts confefs not fo much of. Proteftants ; therefore yours is the fafer way, and in Wif dom and Charity to our own Souls we are bound to follow it. For granting this, you grant as much hope of Salvati- on to ? rote (I ants 3 as Protefiants do to you. If you will not, but ftill affirm, as C. M. does, that Protefiants (not , diflemblers but believers) without a particular Repentance of their Religion cannot be faved : This I fay, is a want of Charity. But I pray Sir what dependance is there between thefe Propofitions : We that hold Protefiant Religion falie ihould be damned if we ihould profefs it, Therefore they alio ihall be damned, that hold it true ? Juft as if you ihould conclude , Becaufe he that doubts is Damned if he Eat 3 Therefore he that does not doubt is damned alio if lie Eat. And therefore though your Religion to us, or ours to you, if profeiTed againft Conicience would be damnable ; yet may it well be uncharitable to define it ihall be fo, to them that prof e(s either this or that according to Conicience. 3. Ad ;. 4. 5. 6. §. ] C. M. Our meaning is not, that we give Proteftants over to reprobation ; that we offer no Praysrs in hope of their Salvation ; that we hold their Cafe defperate, God forbid^ 6cc. H z CHIL. < i Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftants. CHIL. I vvifh with all my Heart that you had expref- fed your felf in this matter more fully and plainly.Yet that which you fay,doth plainly enough afford us thefe Corolla- ries, r .That whatsoever Protefiant wanteth Capacity.or hav- ing it, wanteth fufEcient means of inftru&ion to convince his Confcience of the falfhood of his own, and the truth of the Roman Religion, by the confeftion of his moft rigid Adverfaries, may be faved, notwithftanding any Error in his Religion, i. That nothing hinders but that a Protefia?it Dying a Proteftant may Die with contrition for all his Sins. %. That if he Die with Contrition, he may and mall be faved. 4, All thefe acknowledgments we have from you, while you are, as you fay, Rating, but, as I conceive grant- ing the very point in queftion. So that according to your Doctrine, the heavy Sentence mail remain upon fuch only, as either were, or hut for their oivn fault, might have been fufficiently convinced of the truth of your Religi- on, and the falfliood of their own, and yet Die in it without contrition. Which Doctrine if you would ftand to, and not pull down, and pull back with one hand, what you give and build with the other, this controveriie were ended* and I mould willingly acknowledge, that which follows in your fourth paragraph ; Thar you allow Protectants as much- Charity as D. Potter allows you. But then I muft in- treat you to alter the argument of this Chapter, and not to go about to give us reaibns, why amongfi Men of different Religions , one fide only can be faved abfolutely, which your Realons drive at : But you muft temper the crudenefs of your Aftertion by faying, One Side only can be faved, un- lefs want of Conviclion, or elfe Repentance excufe the other. Befides you muft not only abftain from damning any Pro- tefiant m particular, but from affirming in general, that Proteftants Dying m their Religion cannot be faved \ for you muft always remember to add this caution, unlefs they were excufably ignorant of the fal(hood of it, or Died with contrition. And then considering that you cannot know, whether or no, all things confidered, they were convin- i ii:fncientiv of the truth of your Religion and the falfhood Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftants. 5 $ 'alftiood of their own, you are obliged by Charity to judge the beft, and hope .they are not. Confidering again, that notwithstanding their Errors, they may Die with contrition, and that it is no way improbable that they do fo, and the contrary you cannot be certain of, You are bound in Charity to judge and hope they do fo. Con- fidering thirdly and laftly, that if they Die not with Con- trition, yet it is very probable they may Die with Attriti- on > and that this pretence of yours, that Contrition will ferve without aclual Confejfion, hut Attrition will not} is but a Nicety or Phanfie, or rather to give it the true name, a Device of your own, to ferve ends and purpofes; (God having no where declared himfelf, but that wherefbever he will accept of that Repentance, which you are pleaf- ed to call Contrition, he will accept of that which you call Attrition ; For though he like belt the bright Flam- ing Holocauft of Love, yet he reje&s not, he quenches not the fmoaking Flax of that Repentance ( if it be true and effe&ual ) which proceeds from hope and fear : J Thefe things I fay, confidered, ( unlefs you will have the Charity of your Do&rine rife up in judgment againft your uncharitable Pra&ice) you muft not only not be peremptory, in damning Vrotefiants, but you muft hope well of their Salvation : and out of this hope, you mult do for them as well as others, thofe, as you conceive, Charitable offices, of Praying, giving Alms and offering Sacrifice, which ufually you do, for thofe of whofe Sal- vation you are well and Charitably perfuaded ; (for I be- lieve you will never conceive fb well of Proteftants, as to aflure your f elves they go dire&ly to Heaven.) Thefe things when you do I mall believe you think as Charita- bly as you fpeak. But until then, as he faid in the Co- medy, J$uid verba audiam cum facia vide am f fo may I fay to you, Quid verba audiam cum facia von videam ? To what purpofe fhould you give us Charitable Words, which prefently you retraci again, by denying us your Charitable Adions. And as thefe things you muft do, if you will ftand to and make good this pretended Cha- rity, fo muft I tell you again and again, that one thing you. e 4 Papifts uncharitable in condemning Protectants. you muft not doe ; I mean you muft not affright poor People out of their Religion, with telling them, that by the Confefflon of bcth fides, your way is fafe, but in your judgment, ours undoubtedly damnable. Seeing neither you deny Salvation to Froteftants Dying with repentance, nor we promife it to you, if ye Die without it. For to deal plainly with you, I know no Proteftant that hath any o- ther hope of your Salvation, but upon thefe grounds, that unaffected ignorance may excufe you, or true repentance obtain pardon for you ; neither do the heavy cenfures which Troteftants (you fay) pafs upon your Errors, any way hinder but they may hope as well of you, upon re- pentance, as I do. For the fierce Doclrine, which, God knows who, teaches, that Chrift for many Ages before Lu- ther had no vifible Church upon Earth ; Will be mild enough, if you conceive them to mean (as perhaps they do) by no njifible Church, none pure and free from corruptions, which in your judgment is all one with no Church. But the truth is the corruption of the Church, and the deflruclion of it, is not all one. For if a particular man or Church may (as you confefs they may) hold fbme particular Errors, and yet be a member of the Church Univerfal : why may not the Church hold fbme Univerfal Error, and yet be ftill the Church ? especially, feeing you fay, it is no- thing but oppofing the Dotlrine of the Church, that makes an Error damnable, and it is impodible that the Church mould oppofe the Church, I mean that the prefent Church ihould oppofe it felf. And then for the Englijh Troteftants, though they cenfure your Errors deeply, yet, by your fa- vour, with their deeped cenfures it may well conlift that invincible ignorance may excufe you from damnation for them. For you your felf confefs that ignorance may excufe Errors, even in Fundamental Articles of Faith : Jo that a man fo erring (hall not offend at all in fuch his ignorance or Error ; they are your own words, p. 1 9. And again with their heavieft cenfures it may well conlift, that your Er- rors though in themfelves damanble, yet may prove not damning to you, if you Die with true repentance, for all your fins known and unknown. 5. Thus Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftants. { J 5. Thus much Charity therefore, if you ftand to what you have (aid, is interchangeably granted by each Side to the other, that Neither Religion is (b fatally deftruclive, but that by ignorance or repentance Salvation may be had en both Sides : though with a difference that keeps Papifls ftill on the more uncharitable Side. For whereas we con- ceive a lower degree of repentance (that which they call Attrition) if it be true, and effectual, and convert the Heart of the Penitent, will ferve in them : They pre- tend (even this Author which is moll charitable towards us,) that without Contrition there is no hope for us : But though Protefiants may not obtain this purchafe at ib ealie a rate as Papifls, yet (even Tapifts being Judges ) they may obtain it ; and though there is no entrance for them but at the only door of Contrition, yet they may enter, Heaven is not inacceffible to them. Their Errors are no fiich impenetrable Iftmus's between them and Salvation, but that Contrition may make a way through them. All their Schiim and Herefie is no fuch fatal Poyfbn, but that if a man joyn with it the Antidote of a general re- pentance, he may Die in it,and live for ever. Thus much then being acknowledged, I appeal to any indifferent reader, whether C. M. be not by »his Hyperajpifl fodaken in the plain Field, and the point in queftion granted to D. Potter, viz. TJoat Troteflancy even without a particular repentance, is not defirutlive of Salvation; Co that all the Controverfie remaining now, is, not limply whether Tro- teflancy unrepented defiroys Salvation ? as it was at firft pro- posed, but Whether Troteflancy in it [elf (that is abflraBing from ignorance and contrition) defiroys Salvation* So that as a foolifh Fellow who gave a Knight the Lie, delinng withal leave of him to let his Knighthood afide, was anfwered by him, that he would not fuffer any thing to be let afide that belonged unto him : So might we juftly take it amifs, that conceiving as you do Ignorance and Repentance fuch neceflary things for us, you are not more willing to confider us with them , than without them. For my part fuch is my Chanty to you, that confidering what great neceffity Tou have, as much as any Chriflian 56 Papifts uncharitable in condemning Protectants. Chriftian Society in the World, that thefe Sandhiaries of Ig- norance and Repentance mould always ftand open, I can very hardly perfuade my (elf fb much as in my mod fe- cret confederation to deveft you of thefe fb needful qua- lifications : But whenlbever your Errors, fiiperftitions and impieties come into my mind, ( and befides the general bonds of humanity and Chriftianity, my own particular Obligations to many of you, fuch and fb great, that you cannot penih without a part of my felf,)my only comfort is amidft thefe Agonies, that the Doctrine and Practice too of Repentance, is yet remaining in your Church : And that though you put on a Face or confidence of your Innocence in point of Doclxine, yet you will be glad to ftand in the Eye of Mercy as well as your fellows, and not be fb flout, as to refute either Gods pardon or the Kings. 6. But for the prefent, Proteftancy is called to the Barr, and though not lentenced by you to Death without Mer- cy, yet arraigned of fb much natural malignity ( if not corrected by Ignorance or Contrition ) as to be in it felf de- ftruBive of Salvation. Which controverfie I am content todifpute with you; only remembring you, that the ad- ding of this limitation [ in it (elf~\ hath made this a new Queftion, and that this is not the conclusion for which you were charged with want of Charity. 7. Ad 7. and 8.§.] C. M. Now this is our gradation of reafons. Almighty God having ordained mankind to a fuper- natural end of Eternal Felicity, hath in his providence fetled competent Means, &c. CHIL. In your gradation I mall rife fo far with you as to grant, that Chrijl founded a vifible Church, fiored with all helps necejjary to Salvation, particularly with fufficient means to beget and conferve Faith, to maintain Unity, and compofe Schifms, to difcover and condemn Herefas, and to determine all controverfies in Religion, which were neceflary to be determined. For all thefe purpofes, he gave at the be- ginning fas we may fee in the Ep. to the Ephefians) Apu- Jlles, Prophets, Evangelifts, Tafiors, and Dottors : who by word of mouth taught their contemporaries, and by wri- tings Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftants. $7 tings (wrote indeed by fome, but approved by all of them) taught their Chriftian poftenty to the Worlds End, how all thefe ends, and that which is the End of all thefe ends> Salvation, is to be atchieved. And thefe means the Pro- vidence of God hath ftill prefer ved, and lb preferved, that they are fufficient for all thefe intents. I lay frjficienr^ though, through the Malice of Men, not always effectual, for that the fame means may be fufficient for the com- pafling an end, and not effe&ual, you muft not deny, who hold that God gives aU men Sufficient means of Salva- tion, and yet that all are not faved. I laid alfo, fufficient to determine all controverfies, which 'were neceffary to be de- termined. For if fbme controverfies may for many Ages be undetermined, and yet in the mean while men be li- ved ; why mould, or how can the Churches being fur- nifhed with effectual means to determine all Controver- fies in Religion be neceflary to Salvation, the end it felf, to which thefe means are ordained being as experience mews not neceflary ? Plain fenfe will teach every man, that the neceflity of the means muft always be meafured by, and can never exceed the neceflity of tjp end. As if eating be neceffary, only that I may live, then certain- ly if I have no neceflity to live, I have no neceflity to eat. If I have no need to be at London, I have no need of a Horfe to carry me thither. If I have no need to Fly, I have no need of Wings. Anfwer me then I pray dire&ly, and Categorically, Is it neceflary that all Con- troverfies in Religion mould be determined, or is it not ? If it be, why is the queftion of Predetermination, of the immaculate conception, of the Popes indirecl power in tem- pralties, fb long undetermined ? if not, what is it bur Hypocrifie to pretend fuch great neceflity of fuch effe- ctual means, for the atchieving that end, which is it lelf not neceflary. Chriftians therefore have and fhall have means fufficient (though not always effedual) to determine not all controverfies but all neceffary to be determined. I pro- ceed on farther with you, and grant that this means to decide controverfies in Faith and Religion, muft be in- dued with an Univerfal Infallibility in whatfbever it pro- I poundeth j 8 Papifts uncharitably in condemning Proteftants. poundeth for a Divine truth. For if it may be falfe in any one thing of this nature, in any thing which God requires men to believe, we can yield unto it but a wa- vering and fearful affent in any thing. Thefe grounds therefore I grant very readily, and give you free leave to make your beft advantage of them. And yet, to deal truly, I do not perceive how from the denial of any of them it would follow that Fa.th is Opinion : or from the granting them, that it is not fb But for my part, what- soever clamour you have railed againft me, I think no otherwile of the Nature cf Faith, 1, mean Hifiorical Faith, than generally both Proteftants and Papifts do ; for I con- ceive it an ajjent to Divine Revelations upon the Authority of the revealer. Which though in many things it differ from Opinion, (as commonly the Word Opinion is underfrood> yet in fbme things, I doubt not but you will confefs, that it agrees with it. As firft, that as Opinion is an Aflent, fo is Faith alfb. Secondly, that as Opinion, fb Faith is always built upon lefs evidence than that of Sence or Sci- ence. Which aflertion you not only grant but mainly contend fojpn your Jixth Ch. Thirdly and laftly, that as Opinion, Jo Faith admits degrees ; and that as there may be a ftrong and weak Opinion, fb there may be a ftrong and weak Faith. Thefe things if you will grant (as fure if you be in your right mind you will not deny any of them) I am well contented that this ill-founding Word, Opinion, mould be difcarded, and that among the Intel- lectual habits you mould feek out fbme other Genm for Faith. For I will never contend with any man about Words, who grants my meaning, 8. But though the Eftence of Faith exclude not all weaknefs and imperfeBion, yet may it be enquired, whether any certain- ty of Faith, under the high eft degree may be fufficient to pleafe God and attain Salvation. Whereunto I anfwer,that though men are unreafbnable, God requires not any thing but Reafbn. They will not be pleafed without a down weight, but God is contented if the Scale be turned. They pre- tend, that Heavenly things cannot be feen to any pur- pofe, but by the mid-day-light : But God will be Satisfi- ed, Papifk uncharitable in condemning Proteflants. 59 ei, if we receive any degree of light which makes us leave the Works ofDarkneJs and walk as Children of the Light. They exaft a certainty of Faith above that of Sence or Science, God defires only that we believe the conclufion, as much as the premifes deferve, that the ftrength of our Faith be equal or proportionable to the credibility of the Motives to it. Now though I have and ought to have an abfblute certainty of this Thefis, All which God reveals for truth ts true, being a proportion that may be demonftrated, or rather fo evident to any one that underftands it, that it needs it not; Yet of thisHypothe- fis, That all the Articles of our Faith were revealed by God, we cannot ordinarily have any rational and acquired cer- tainty, more than moral, founded upon thefe confederati- ons : Firft that the goodnefs of the precepts of Chriftia- nity, and the greatnefs of the promifes of it, mews it, of all other Religions, moft likely to come from the Foun- tain of gdodnefs. And then that a conftant, famous and very general Tradition, fb credible, that no Wife Man doubts of any other, which hath but the Fortieth part of the credibility of this, fuch and fo credible 4 Tradition, tells us, that God himfelf hath fet his Hand and Seal to the Truth of this Dodnne, by doing great, and glorious, and frequent miracles in confirmation of it. Now our Faith is an aflent to this conclufion, that the Doctrine of Chrifiamty ts true, which being deduced from the former Thefis y which is Metapyhfically certain, and from the for- mer Hypothefis, whereof we can have but a Moral certain- ty, we cannot poflibly by natural means be more certain of it than of the weaker of the premifes ; as a River will not rife higher than the Fountain from which it flows. Fo- the conclufion always follows the worfer part, if there be any worfe : and muft be Negative, Particular, Con- tingent, or but Morally certain, if any of the Propor- tions, from whence it is derived be fo : Neither can we be certain of it in the highefl degree, unlels we be thus cer- tain of all the principles whereon it is grounded. As a man cannot go or ftand ftrongly, if either of his Legs be weak. Or as a building cannot be ftable, if any one I 2 of Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftailtl of the neceflarv Pillars thereof be infirm and inftable* Or as. If a meflage be brought me, from a man of abfb- lute credit with me, but by a meflenger that is not fb, my confidence of the Truth of the Relation, cannot but be rebated and leflened, by my diffidence in the Relator. 9. Yet all this I fay not as if I doubted, that the Spirit of God, being implored by devout and humble Prayer and fincere obedience, may, and will by degrees, advance his fervants higher, and give them a certainty of adhe- rence, beyond their certainty of evidence. But what God gives as a reward to believers, is one thing : and what he requires of all men, as their duty, is another : and what he will accept of out of grace and favour, is yet another. To thofe that believe and live according to their Faith, he gives by degrees the Jpirit of obfignation and confirmation, which makes them know ( though how they know not ) what they did but believe : And to be as fully and refb- lutely allured of the Gofpel of Chrift, as thofe which heard it from Chrift himfelf with their Ears, which faw it with their Eyes, which looked upon it, and whole hands hand- led the Word of Life. He requires of all, that their Faith Ihould be (as I have faid ) proportionable to the motives and Reafbns enforcing to it ; he will accept of the weak- eft and loweft degree of Faith, if it be living and effe- ctual unto true obedience. For he it is that wilt not quench the fmoakmg Flax, nor break the bru'tfed Reed. He did not reject the Prayer of that diftrefled man that cried unto him, Lord I believe, Lord help my unbelief. He commands us to receive them that are weak in Faith, and thereby de- clares that he receives them. And as nothing avails with him, but Faith wicb -worketh by love: So any Faith, if it be but as a grain of Mufiard feed, if it work by love, mall certainly avail with him and be accepted of him. Some experience makes me fear, that the Faith of confidering and difcourfing men, is like to be crackt with too much ftraining : And that being poffeffed with this falfe Prin- ciple, that it is in vain to believe the Gofpel of Chrift, with fuch a kind or degree of aflent, as they, yield to other matters of Tradition ; And finding that their Faith of it, is Papifts uncharitable in condemning Protectants. & i is to them uncHfcernable, 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 purpole, orelfe, though indeed they do believe it, yet to think they do not, and to caft themielves into wretched agonies and perplexities, as fearing they have not that, without which it is impoffible to pleaie God and obtain Eternal happinefs. Consideration of this advantage, which the Devil proba- bly may make of this Phanfie, made me willing to m'fifl ibmewhat largely upon the Refutation of it. io. I return now thither from whence I havedigreiTed, and afliire you, concerning the grounds afore-laid, which were, that there is a Rule of Faith, whereby contr over fie s may be decided, which are necejj'ary to be decided, and that this rule is Univerfally infallible, That notwithstanding any Opinion I hold, touching Faith, or any thing elfe, I may, and do believe them, as firmly as you pretend to do. And therefore you may build on, in Gods name, for by Gods help, I mall always embrace, whatfbever ftru&ure is naturally and rationally laid upon them, whatfbever conclusion may, to my underftanding, be evidently de- duced from them. You fay, out of them it undeniably follows, That of two difagreeing in matter of Faith , the one cannot be faved, but by Repentance or Ignorance. \ an- fwer by difhnehon of thofe terms, two difjenting in a matter of Faith. For it may be either in a thing which is indeed a matter of Faith, in the ftn&eft fenfe, that is, fomething, the Belief whereof God requires under pain of damnation : And io the conclusion is true, though the Confequence of it from your former premifles either is none at all, or fo obfcure, that I can hardly difcern it Or it may be as^ ofcens falls out concerning a thing which being indeed no matter of Faith, is yet overvalued by the Parties at fiance, and efteemed to be fa And in this fenfe it is neitner consequent nor true. The untruth of it I have already declared in my examination of your Preface. The inconfequence of it is of it felf evident; for who ever heard of a wilder Collection than this God gi Papifts uncharitable in condemning VrotQ^zms. God hath provided means fufiicient to decide all Con- troverfies in Religion, neceflary to be decided ; This means is Univerfally infallible, Therefore of two, that differ in any thing which they efteem a matter of Faith, one cannot befaved. He that can find any connection between thefe Pro- pofitions, I believe will be able to find good coherence between the Deaf PlantifPs Accufation, in the Greek B- pigram, and the Deaf Defendants Anfwer, and the Deaf Judges Sentence : And to contnve them all into a formal Categorical Syllogifm. i i. Indeed if the matter in agitation were plainly de- cided, by this infallible means of deciding Controverfies, and the Parties in variance knew it to be lb, and yet would ftand out in their diilention ; this were in one of them, direct oppofition to the Teftimony of God, and undoubtedly a damnable fin. But if you take the liber- ty to fuppofe what you pleafe, you may very eafily con- clude what you lift. For who is fo foolifh as to grant you thefe unreafbnable Poftulates, that every emergent Controverfie of Faith, is plainly decided by the means of dicifion which God hath appointed, and that of the . Parties litigant, one is always fuch a convidred Recufant as you pretend! Certainly, if you fay fb, having no bet- ter warrant than you have, or can have for it, this is more proper and formal unchantablenefs, than ever was charged upon you. Methinks , with much more Reafon, and much more Chanty, you might fuppofe, that many of thefe Controverfies which are now difpu- ted among Chriftians (all which profefs themfelves lov- ers of Chrift, and truly deiirous to know his Will and do it ) are either not decidable by that mea^s which God hath provided, and lb not neceflary to be oecided : Or if they be, yet not fo plainly and evidently, as to^>blige all men to hold one way : or Laftly, if decidable, and evidently decided, yet you may hope that the erring part, by rea- fon of fbme Vail before his Eyes, Come excujMe ignorance or unavoidable prejudice, does not fee the Queftion to be decided againil him, and fb oppofes not that which He doth Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftants. 6} doth know to be the word of God, but only that which You know to be (b, and which he might know, were he void of prejudice. Which is a fault I confefs, but a fault which is incident even to good and honeft men ve- ry often : and not of fuch a gigantick difpofition as you make it, to fly dire&ly upon God Almighty, and to give him the Lie to his Face. 12, Ad 9, io, ii, n, 13, 14, 15,16. §.] In all this long difcourle you only tell us what you will do, but do nothing, but referve them to the Chapters following, and there they mall be examined. The Sum of all colle&ed by -your (elf, §. 16. is this. That the Infallible means of determining Cojitroverfies, is the Vifible Church. That the dijtinction of points Fundamental, and not Funda- mental, maketh nothmg to the prefent Side ft ion. That to fay the Creed containeth all Fundamentals, is neither pertinent nor true. That whofoever perfijt in Divifion from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schifm and Herefte. That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards one felf Proteftants are in jtate of Sin, while they remain divi- ded from the Roman Chruch. To all thefe Aflertions I will content my (elf for the prefent to oppofe this one., That not one of them all is true. Only I may not omit to tell you, that if the firft of them were as true as the Tope himfelf defires it mould be, yet the Corellary which you deduce from it, would be utter- ly inconfequent, That whofoever denys any point propofed by the Church, is injurious to Gods Divine Majefty, as if he could deceive, or be deceived. For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Prcpounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be, yet if it appeared not to. me to be fb, I might very w*ell believe God mod true, and your Church moft falfe. As though the Gofpel of S. Matthew be the Word of God, yet if I neither knew it to be fo, nor be- lieved it, I might believe in God, and yet think that Go£ pel a Fable. Hereafter therefore I mud entreat you to remember, 64 Papifls uncharitable in condemning Proteftants. remember, that our being guilty of this impiety, depends not only upon your being, but upon our knowing that you are fb. Neither rnuft you argue thus, The Church of Rome is the Infallible Fropounder of Divine Ferities, there- fore he that oppofes Her calls Gods Truth in JHuefiion : But thus rather; The Church of Rome is fa, and Proteftants know it to be fo, therefore in oppofing Her, they impute to God j that either he deceives them, or is deceived him/elf For as I may denv fbmething which you upon your know- ledg have affirmed, and yet never difparage your hone- fty, if I never knew that you affirmed it : So I may be undoubtedly certain of Gods Omnifcience, and Veracity, and yet doubt of fbmething which he hath revealed, pro- vided I do not know, nor believe that he hath revealed it. So, that though your Church be the appointed wit- nefs of Gods Revelations; yet until you know, that we know me is fo, you cannot without foul Calumny impute to us, That we charge God blafyhemoufly with deceiving, or being deceived. You will fay perhaps, That this is di- re&ly confcquent from our Doctrine, That the Church may Err, which is directed by God in all Her propo- sals. True, if we knew it to be dire&ed by him, o- therwife not ; much lefs if we believe, and know the contrary. But then if it were confequent from our Opi- nion, have you fb little Charity as to fay, that men are jufily chargeable with all the conjequences of their Opinions. ; Such confluences, I mean, as they do not own but dif- claim, and if there were a neceffity of doing either, would much rather forfake their Opinion than embrace thefe Confequences? What Opinion is there that draws after it fuch a Train of portentous Blafyhcmies, as that of thq Dominicans, by the judgment of the beft Writers of your own Order ? And will you fay now that the Dominicans are juftly chargeable with all thefe Blafphemies ? If not, feeing our cale (take it at the worlt) is tfct the fame, why mould not your judgment of us be the lame ? I appeal to all thofe Troteftants that have gone over to your Side ; whether when they were moil: averfe from it, they did eve*, deny or doubt of Gods omntfaence or veracity; whe- Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftailts. 6? whether they did ever believe, or were taught, that God did deceive them, or -was deceived himfelf.Nay, I provoke to you your felf, and defire you to deal truly, and to tell Us whether you do in your Heart believe, that we do indeed not believe the Eternal Veracity of the Eternal Verity ? And if you judge Co ftrangely of us, having no better ground for it, than you have or can have, we mall not need any farther proof of your uncharitablenefs towards us, this being the extremity of true uncharitablenefs. If not, then I hope having no other ground but this (which fiire is none at all ) to pronounce us damnable Hereticks, you will ceafe to do Co ; and hereafter (as, if your ground be true, you may do with more truth and Chanty) Col- led: thus, They only Err damnably, who oppofe what they know God hath testified, But Protefiants jure do not oppofe what they know God hath tefiified, at leaf we cannot with Charity fay they do, Therefore they either do not Err damna- bly, or with Charity we cannot fay they do fo, i %. Ad 17. £. ] Protefiants (you lay) according to their own grounds mufb hold that of Perfons contrary in whatfoever point of belief one part only can befaved, therefore it is firangely done of them to charge Papiffcs with want of Charity for hold- ing the fame. The confequence I acknowledg, but won- der much what it mould be that lays upon Protefiants any neceffity to do Co ! You tell us it is their holding Scrip- ture the fole Rule of Faith : for this, you fay, obligeth them to pronounce them damned, that oppofe any leafl point delivered in Scripture. This I grant, If they oppofe it after fufficient declaration, lb that either they know it to be contained m Serif ture, or have no juft probable Rea- fbn, and which may move an honeft man to doubt whe- ther or no it be there contained. For to oppofe in the firfl Cafe in a man that believes the Scripture to be the Word of God, is to give God the Lie. To oppofe in the fecond, is to be obftinate againft Reafbn, and therefore a Cm though not fb great as the former. But then this is nothing to the purpofe of the neceffity of damning all thofe that are of contrary belief; and that for the(e Reafbns. Firft,becaufe the contrary belief maybe touch- K ing 66 Papifts uncharitable in condemning Proteftants. ing a point not at ail mentioned in Scripture ; and fuch points, though indeed they be not matters of Faith, yet by men in variance are often over- valued and efteemed to be fb. So that, though it were damnable to oppofe any point contained in Scripture; yet Perfbns of a contrary belief fas Viclor and Tolycrates, S. Cyprian, and Stephen) might both be faved, becaufe their contrary belief was not touch- ing any point contained in Scripture. Secondly, becaufe the contrary belief may be about the fenfe of fbme place of Scripture which is ambiguous, and with probability capable of diverfe Senfes ; and in fuch Cafes it is no mar- vel, and Hire no Sin, if feveral men go feveral ways. Thirdly, becaufe the contrary belief may be concerning points wherein Scripture may with fb great probability be alledged on both fides, (which is a fure note of a point not necejjary) that men of honeft and upright Hearts, true lovers of God and of truth, fiich as defire, above all things, to know Gods Will and to do it, may, without any fault at all, fbme go one way, and fome another, and fbme (and thofe as good men as either of the former ) fufpend their judgments, and expedt fbme Elias to folve doubts, and reconcile repugnances. Now in all fuch Queftions one fide or other (which fbever it is J holds that which in* deed is oppofite to the fenfe of the Scripture, which God intended ; for it is impoflible that God inould intend Con- tradictions. But then this intended Senfe is not fb fully declared, but that they which oppofe it may verily be- lieve that they indeed maintain it, and have great fhew of reafbn to induce them to believe^ fb; and therefore are not to be damned, as men oppofing that which they either know to be a truth delivered in Scripture, or have no probable Reafbn to believe the contrary; but rather in Charity to be acquitted and abfblved, as men who endeavour to find the Truth, but fail of it through humane frailty. This ground being laid, the Anfwer to your enfeing Interrogatories, which you conceive impoflible, is very obvious and eafie. 14. To Papifts uncharitable in condemning Froteftants. 67 14. To the fir ft > Whether it be not in any man a grievous fin to deny any^ any one Truth contained in holy Writ ? I an- fwer, Yes, if he knew it to be fo, or have no probable Reafon to doubt of it : otherwifc not. IC. To the fecondy Whether there be in fuch denial any di- fiintlion between Fundamental and not Fundamental fufficient to excufe from Herefie ? I anfwer, Yes, There is fuch a di- ftinftion. But the Reafon is, becaufe thefe points, either in themfelves, or by accident, are Fundamental, which are evidently contained in Scripture, to him that knows them to be fo : Thofe not Fundamental which are there-hence deducible but probably only, not evidently. 1 6. To the third, Whether it be not impertinent to alledge the Creed as containing all Fundamental pints of Faith, as if believing it alone we were at Liberty to deny all other Points of Scripture ? I anfwer, It was never alledged to any fuch purpofe ; but only as a fufficient, or rather more than a fufficient Summary of thofe points of Faith, which were of neceflity to be believed actually and explicitely ; and that only of fuch which were meerly and purely Credenda, and not Agenda. 17. To the fourth, drawn as a Corollary from the for- mer, Whether this be not to fay, that of Perfons contrary in belief one part only can be faved ? I anfwer, By no means. For they may differ about points not contained m Scripture: They may differ about the fenfe of fome ambiguous Texts of Scripture : They may differ about fome Doctrines, for and againft which Scriptures may be alledged with Jo great probability, as may juftly excufe either Part from Herefie, and a felf-condemning obffinacy. And there- fore, though D. Potter do not take it ill, that you believe your felves may be faved in your Religion ; yet notwith- standing all that hath yet been pretended to the contra- ry, he may juftly condemn you, and that out of your own principles, oi uncharitable pre fumpt ion, for affirming as you do, that no man can be faved out of it. Ki CHAP. £S Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over pes, CHAP. II. The ANSWER to the Second C HAPTER. Concerning the weans, whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our under fianding ; and which muft deter- mine Controverfes in Faith and Religion. C. M. Of our eftimation, refpeci and reverence to holy Scrip- ture, even Proteftants themfelves give Tefiimony, while they poffefs it from ttsi and take it upon the integrity of our cuftody, &c. CHIL. Ad §. i.] He that would Ufurp an abfblute Lordihip and Tyranny over any People, need not put himfelf to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and difanulling the Laws., made to maintain the Common Liberty ; for he may fruftrate their intent, and compafs his own defign as well, if he can get the Power and Authority to interpret them as he pleaies, and add to them what he pleafes, and to have his interpretations and additions ftand for Laws ; if he can rule his People by his Laws, and his Laws by his Lawyers. So the Church of Rome, to eftablifh Her Tyranny over mens Confci- ences, needed not either to abolifh or corrupt the Holy Scriptures, the Pillars and Supporters of Chriftian Liber- ty (which in regard of the numerous multitude of Copies difperfed through all places., Tranflated into almoft all Languages, guarded with all follicitous care and induftry, had been an lmrjoflible attempt ; ) But the more expedite way, and therefore more likely to be .fuccefsful, was to gain the opinion and efteem of the publick and authorised interpreter of them, and the Authority of adding to them what Doctrine me pleafed under the Title of Traditions or Definitions. For by this means, me might both ferve her (elf of all thofe caules of Scripture, which might be drawn to caft a favourable countenance upon Her ambitious pre- tences, which in cafe the Scripture had been abohmed, me could not have done ; and yet be fecure enough of having Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. 6? having either her Power limitted, or her corruptions and abufes reformed by them ; this being once fetled in the minds of men, that unwritten DotJhnes, if prcpofed by her, were to be received with equal reverence to thoje that were written : and that the fenfe of Scripture was not that which feemed to mens reafon and understanding to be fo, but that which the Church of Rome fiould declare to be fo, feemed it never fo unrea finable, and incongruous. The matter be- ing once thus ordered, and the holy Scriptures being made in effed not your Directors and Judges (no farther than you pleaie) but your Servants and Inftruments, always preft and in readinefs to advance your defigns, and dis- abled wholly with minds lb qualified to prejudice or im- peach them ; it is fafe for you to put a Crown on then- head, and a Reed in their Hands, and to bow before them, and cry, Hail King of the Jews! to pretend a great deal of efieem, and refpell, and reverence to them, as here you do. But to little purpofe is verbal reverence without entire fubmiffion and iincere obedience ; and, as our Sa- viour (aid of fbme, fo the Scripture, could it f peak, I be- lieve would fay to you, Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not that which I command you ? Call away the vain and ar- rogant pretence of Infallibility, which makes your Errors incurable. Leave Picturing God, and Worfhiping him by Pictures. Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men. Debar not the Laity of the Teftament of ChrifVs Blood. Let your publick Prayers, and Pfalms and Hjmes be in fiich Language as is for the Edification of the Affiftants. Take not from the Clergy that Liberty of Marriage which Chrift hath left them. Do not mipofe upon men that Humility of Worjlriping Angels which S. Paul condemns. Teach no more proper Sacrifices of Chnit. but one. Ac- knowledge them that Die in Chrijt to be blejfed, and to re/t from their Labours. Acknowledge the Sacrament after Con- fecration, to be Bread and Wine, as well as Chnfts Bo- dy and Blood. Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all. Let not the Weapons of your Warfiire be Carnal ; fuch as are Maffi. cres, Treafbns, Perfecutions, and in a word all means either Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverts. either violent or fraudulent : Thefe and other things, which the Scripture commands you, do, and then we fhall willingly give you fuch Teftimony as you deferve; but till you do fo, to talk of eftimation^refped:., and reve- rence to the Scripture, is nothing elie but talk. 2. For neither is that true which you pretend, That we pojfefs the Scripture fro?n you, or take it upon the integrity of your Cuftody, but upon Univerfal Tradition, of which you are but a little part. Neither, If it were true that Pro- t eft ants acknowledged, The integrity of it to have been guard- ed by your alone Cuftody, were this any argument or your reverence towards them. For firft, you might preferve them entire, not for want of Will, but of Power to cor- rupt them, as it is a hard thing to Poyfon the Sea. And then having prevailed (b far with men, as either not to look at all into them, or but only through fuch fpe£tacles as you fliould pleafe to make for them, and to fee no- thing in them, though as clear as the Sun, if it any way made againfl you, you might keep them entire, without any thought or care to conform your Doctrine to them, or reform it by them (which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures) but out of a perfuafion, that you could qualifie them well enough with your glofles and inter- pretations, and make them fufficiently conformable to your preient Doctrine, at leaft, in their judgment, who were prepoiTefled with this perfuafion, that your Church Wiis to 'judge of the fenfe of Scripture , not to be judged by it. 5. Whereas you fay, No caufe imaginable could avert your will from giving the function of Supream and folt judge to holy Writ, but that the thing is impoffible, and that by this means controverfies are encreajed and not ended. What indiffe- rent and unprejudiced man may not eafily conceive ano- ther caule which ( I do not lay docs, but certainly j may prevert your Wills, and avert your unclerftandings from lubmitting your Religion and Church to a Try a I by Scrip- ture. I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this means you would fall into, of lofing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility, and confequently your Power and Authority over mens Con- iciencesj Scripture the only Rule for Judging' Controverts. 71 (ciences, and all that depends upon it; (b that though Diana of the Ephefians be cryed up, yet it may be feared that with a great many among you (though I cenfure or judge no man J the other cauie which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen, may have with you alfo the more effe&ual, though more fecret influence : and that is, that by this craft we have our living ; by this craft, I mean of keeping your Profelytes from an indifferent Trv- al of your Religion by Scripture, and making them yield up and captivate their judgment unto yours. As for the impoffibility of Scriptures being the (ble Judge of Controverfies,that isjhe (ole rule for man to judge them by (for we mean nothing elfe) you only affirm it without proof, as if the thing were evident of it (elf. And therefore I, conceiving the contrary to be more evident, might well content my (elf to deny it without * refutation. Yet I cannot but defire you to tell me, If Scripture cannot be the Judge of any Controverfie, how (hall that touching the Church and the Notes of it be de- termined? And if it be the (ole Judge of this one, why may it not of others ? Why not of All I Thofe only excepted wherein the Scripture it (elf is the fiibjecfc of the Queftion, which cannot be determined but by na- tural realbn, the only Principle, befide Scripture, which is common to Chriftians. 4. Then for the Imputation of mcreafing contentions and not ending them^ Scripture is innocent of it ; as a!(b this Opinion ; That Controverfies are to be decided by Scripture. for if men did really and iincerely (ubmit their judgments to Scripture, and that only, and would require no more of any man but to do fa, it were importable but that all Controverfies, touching things neceflary and very profit- able mould be ended : and if others were continued or increafed, it were no matter. 5. In the next Words we have dire 61 Boyes-play ; a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other ; an acknowledgment made in one line., and re- traded in the next. We acknowledge (lay you) Scripture to be a perfetf rule, for as much as a writing can be a Ruie^ cniy and to give every man that Jufiice which the Law allows him. But your Argument drawn from hence to /hew a neceffity of a viiible Judge in Controversies of Religioa I lay is Sophiftical : and that for many Reafbns. 14. Firit, Becaufe the variety of Civil cafes is infinite, and therefore there cannot be poffibly Laws enough pro- vided for the determination of them : and therefore there muft be a Judge to fupply out of the Principles of Rea- fbn the interpretation of the Law, where it is defective. But the Scripture (we fay) is a perfect Rule of Faith, and therefore needs no fupply of the defe&s of it. 15. Secondly, To execute the Letter of the Law, ac- cording to rigour, would be many times unjuft, and there- fore there is nQcd of a Judge to moderate it • whereof in Religion there is no ufe at all. 1 6. Thirdly, In Civil and Criminal caufes the parties have for the mod part lb much intereit, and very ofcen to little honefty, that they will not fubmit to a Law though never So Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. never Co plain, if it be againft them ; or will not fee it to be againft them, though it be lb never lb plainly : where- as if men were honeft, and the Law were plain and ex- tended to all cafes, there would be little need of Judges. Now in matters of Religion, when the Queftionis, whe- ther every man be a fit Judge and choofer for him- ielf, we luppole men honeft, and fuch as underftand the difference between a Moment and Eternity. And fuch men, we conceive, will think it highly concerns them to be of the true Religion, but nothing at all that this or that Religion mould be the true. And then we luppole that all the neceflary points of Religion are plain and ea- fie, and conlequently every man in this caule to be a com- petent Judge for himlelf ; becaufe it concerns himfelf to judge right as much as Eternal happinefs is worth. And if through his own default he judge amifs he alone mall fuffer for it. 1 7. Fourthly, in Civil Controverfies we are obliged only to external paffive obedience, and not to an inter- nal and a£tive. We are bound to obey the Sentence of the Judge, or not to refill it, but not always to believe it jufr. But in matters of Religion, fuch a Judge is re- quired whom we mould be obliged to believe, to have judged right. So that in Civil Controverfies every honeft underftanding man is fit to be a Judge ; But in Religi- on none but he that is infallible. 18. Fifthly, in Civil Caufes there is means and power, when the Judge has decreed, to compel men to obey his Sentence : otherwise, I believe, Laws alone, would be to as much purpofe, for the ending of differences, as Laws and Judges both. But all the Power in the World is nei- ther fit to convince, nor able to compel a mansConfci- ence to content to any thing. Worldly terror may pre- vail fb far as to make men profefs a Religion .which they believe not, (luch men I mean, who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs, and a Hell for thole that diflemble fuch truths as are neceflary to be profefled :) But to force, either any man to believe what he believes not. or any honeft man to diflemble what he does believe (if Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. (if God commands him to profefs it, ) or to profefs what he does not believe, all the Powers in the World are too weak, with all the Powers of Hell, to aflift them. 19. Sixthly, in Civil Controverfies the cafe cannot be fb put, bat there may be a Judge to end it, who is not a party : In Controverfies of Religion, it is in a manner impoflible to be avoided but the Judge muft be a party. For this muft be the firft, whether he be a Judge or no, and in that he muft be a party. Sure I am, the Pope> in the Controverfies of our time, is a chief party ; for it highly concerns him, even as much as his Popedom is worth, not to yield any one point of his Religion to be Erroneous. And he is a man fubje&to like paffions with other men. And therefore we may jufrly decline his Sentence, for fear temporal refpecSts mould either blind his judgment, or make him pronounce againft it. 10. Seventhly, in Civil Controverfies, it is impoffible Titius ihould hold the land in queftion and Semproniits too : and therefore either the PlantifF muft injure the Defen- dant, by difquietinghis pofleffion, or the Defendant wrong the PlantifF by keeping his right from him. But in Con- troverfies of Religion the Cafe is otherwife. I may hold my Opinion and do you no wrong, and you yours and do me none. Nay we may both of us hold our Opinion, and yet do our felves no harm ; provided, the difference be not touching any thing neceflary to Salvation, and that we love truth fb well, as to be diligent to inform our Confcience, and conftant in following it. 21. Eightly, For the. ending of Civil Controverfies, who does not fee it is abfblutely neceflary, that not only Judges mould be appointed, but that it Ihould be known and unqueftioned who they are ? Thus all, the Judges of our Land are known men, known to be Judges, and no man can doubt or queftion, but thefe are the Men. O- therwife if it were a difputable things who were thele Judges, and they had no certain warrant for their Autho- rity, but only fbme Topical congruities, would not any man fay fuch Judges, m all likelihood,, would rather mul- tiply Controverfies, then end them ? M zi. Ninthly, Si Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controversies. 21. Ninthly, and laftly, For the deciding of Civil Con- troverfies men may appoint themfelves a judge. But in matters of Religion, this office may be given to none but whom God hath defigned for it : who doth not always give us thofe things which we conceive moft expedient tor our felves. i ; . So like wife if our Saviqur,the King of Heaven ;, had intended that all Controveriies in Religion mould be by fbme Viflble Judge finally determined, who can doubt, but in plain terms he would have exprefled him felf about this matter ? He would have faid plainly. The Bijhop of Rome J have appointed to decide aU emergent Contr over fie s. For that our Saviour defigned the Bi{Vop of Rome to this Office, and yet would not fay fb,nor caufe it to be written— ad Rei memoriam--- by any of the Evangelifts or Apojtlesy io much as once ; but leave it to be drawn out of uncer- tain Principles, by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain confluences, He that can believe it, let him. Allthefe Reafbns, I hope, will convince you, that though we have, and have great neceflity of, Judges in Civil and Criminal caufes : yet you may not conclude from thence, that there is anypublick authorized Judge to determine Controver- fies in Religion, nor any neceflity there mould be any. 14. But the Scripture fiands in need offome watchful and unerring eye to guard it> by means of who ft affured vigil ancy we may undoubtedly receive it fincert and pure. Very true, but this is no other than the watchful Eye of Divine pro- vidence : the goodnefs whereof will never fufTer, that the Scriptures fhould'be depraved and corrupted, but that in them mould be always extant a confpicuous and plain way to Eternal happinefs. Neither can any thing be more palpably unconfiftent with his goodnefs, than to f uf- fer Scripture to be undifcernably corrupted in any mat- ter of moment, and yet to exad of men the belief of thofe verities, which without their fault, or knowledge, orpof- iibihty of prevention, were defaced out of them. So that God requiring of men to believe Scripture in its purity, ingages him felf to fee it preferved in fufficient purity, and you need not fear but he will fatisfie his ingagement. You Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfia, % * You fey, we can have no afj'urance of thts but your Churches Vigilancy. But if we had no other we were in a hard cafe ; for who could then allure us that your Church has been fb vigilant, as to guard Scripture from any the leaft alteration ? There being various Le&ions in the ancient Copies of your Bibles, what fecurity can your new railed Office of AJJurance give us, that, that reading is true which you now receive, and that falfe which you reject ? Cer- tainly they that anciently received and made ufe of thefe divers Copies, were not all guarded by the Churches vi • gilancy from having their Scripture altered from the purity of the Original in many places. For of different readings, it is not in nature impoffible that all mould be falfe, but more than one cannot poffibly be true. Yet the want of fiich a protection was no hindrance to their Salvation, and why then mall the having of it be necefTa- ry for ours ? But then this Vigilancy of your Church, what means have we to be alcertain d of it I Firft, the thing is not evident of it felf; which is evident, becaufe many do not believe it. Neither can any thing be pretended to give evidence to it, but only fbme places of Scripture ; of whofe incorruption more than any other what is it that can fecure me ? If you fay the Churches vigilancy, you are in a Circle, proving the Scriptures uncorrupted by the Churches vigilancy, and the Churches vigilancy by the incorruption of fbme places of Scripture, and again the incorruption of thofe places by the Churches vigilan- cy. If you name any other means, than that means which fecures me of the Scriptures incorruption in thole places, will alfo lerve to allure me of the lame in other places. For my part, abftra&ing from Divine Providence, which will never differ the way to Heaven to be blocked up or made invifible, I know no other means (I mean no other natural and rational means) to be allured hereof, than I have that any other Book is uncorrupted. For though I have a greater degree of rational and humane Afliirance of that than this, in regard of divers conliderations which make it more credible, That the Scripture hath been pre- ferved from any material alteration \ yet my ailurance of M 2 both 84 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over fie s. both is of the fame kind and condition, both Moral a£ (urances,- and neither Phyfical or Mathematical. &$. To the next argument the Reply is obvious; That though we do not believe the Booh of Scripture to be Canojn- cal becaufe they fay fo3 (For other Books that are not Cano- nical may (ay they are, and thofe that are fo may fay nothing of it : ) yet we believe not this upon the Autho- rity of your Church, but upon the Credibility ofUmver- fal Tradition , which is a thing Credible of it felf and there- fore fit to be refted on ; whereas the Authority of your Church is not fb. And therefore your reft thereon is not rational but meerly voluntary. I might as well reft upon the judgment of the next man I meet, or upon a chance of a Lottery for it. For by this means I only know I might Err, but by relying on you I know I mould Err. But yet (to return you one fuppofe for another) fuppofe I mould for this and all other things fubmic to her directi- on, how could fhe allure me that I mould not be mif-led by doing fb ? She pretends indeed infallibility herein, but how can fhe allure us that me hath it ? What, by Scrip- tures.That you fay cannot afmre us of its own Infallibility, and therefore not of yours. What then, by Reafon ? That you fay may deceive in other things, and why not in this ? How then will me affare us hereof, By faying fo ? Of this very affirmation there will remain the fame Que- stion flill, How it can prove it felf to be infallibly true. Neither can there be an end of the like multiplied De- mands, till we reft infbmething evident of itfel£ which demonftrates to the World that this Church is infallible. And feeing there is no fuch Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be fetled on, it muft of neceflity, like the Ifland of Delos, flote up and down for ever. And yet upon this point according to Papifis all other Controver- iies in Faith depend. 26. To the 7,8, 9^10, n, 12, r?, 14, 15,16, §.] The fum an A fubftance or the Ten next Paragraphs is this, That it appears, by the Confcfjions of fame Proteftants, and the Content 'ions of others, that the Queji ions about the Canon of Scripture, what it is : and about the Various re ad mo- and Travfla- Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controversies. 8$ Tranjlations of it, which is true and which not, are not to be determined by Scripture, and therefore that all Controver- ts of Religion are not decidable by Scripture. 27. To which I have already anfwered faying, That when Scripture is affirmed to be the rule by which all Controverfies of Religion are to be decided, Thofe are to be excepted out of this generality which are concern- ing the Scripture it (elf For as that general faying of Scripture, He hath put all things under his Feet, is mod true, though yet S. Paul tells us, That when it is faid, he hath put all things under him, it is manifeft he is excepted who did put all things under him ; So when we fay that all Contro- verfies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture, it is manifeft to all, but Cavillers, that we do and muft except from this generality, thofe which are touching the Scripture *t Jef- Juft as a Merchant mewing a Ship of his own, may lay, all my fubftance is in this Ship ; and yet never intended to deny, that his Ship is part of his fubftance, nor yet to fay that his Ship is in it felf. Or as a man may fay, that a whole Houfe is firpported by the, Foundation, and yet never mean to exclude the Foundation from be- ing a part of the Houfe, or to fay that it is fupported by it ielf. Or as you your felves life to fay, that the Bifhop of Rome is head of the whole Church, and yet would think us but Captious Sophifters mould we infer f om hence, that either you made him no part of the whole, or elfe made him head of himfelf. Your negative conclufion therefore, that thefe Sue ft ions touching Scripture, are not decidable by Scripture, you. needed not have cited any Autho- rities, nor urged any reafon to prove it ; it is evident of it felfi and I grant it without more ado. But your Co- rollary from it, which you would infinuate to your un- wary reader, that therefore they are to be decided by jour> or any Vifible Church, is a meer inconfequence, and very like his collection, who becaufe Vamvhilus was not to have Gly cerium for his Wife, prefently concluded that he muft have her ; as if there had been no more men m the World but Tamphilm and himfelf For fb you as if there were nothing in the World capable of this Office, but the Scripture^ gg Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over fie s. Scripture, or the prefent Church, having concluded againft Scripture, you conceive, but too haftily, that you have concluded for the Church. But the truth is, neither the one nor the other have any thing to do with this matter. For firft,the Queftion whether fuch orfuch a Book be Canoni- cal Scripture, though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture, by (hewing apparent and irreconcilable con- tradictions between it and fbme other Book confefledly Canonical ; yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the Teftimonies of the ancient Churches : any Book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonical, or to be doubted of as uncertain, or rejected as Apocryphal, according as it was received, or doubted of, or rejected by them. Then for the Queftion, of 'various readings which ts the true, it is inreafbn evident and confefled by your ownP^,that there isnopoffible determination of it, but only by companion with ancient Copies. And lafrly for Controversies about different Translations of Scripture, the Learned have the fame means to fatisfie themfelves in it,«as in the Queftions which happen about the Tranflation of any other Author; that is, skill in the Language of the Original, and com- paring Tranflations with it. In which way if there be no certainty, I would know what certainty you have, that your Do-way Old, and Rhemijh New Teftament are true Tranflations ? And then for the unlearned thofe on your Side are fubject to as much, nay the very fame uncertainty with thole on ours.Neither is there any reafon imaginable, why an ignorant Englifi Trot eft ant may not be as fecure of the Tranflation of our Church, that it is free from Error, if not abfblutely, yet in matters of moment, as an ignorant Englijh Tafift can be of his Rhemifli Teftament 3 or Doway Bible. The beft direction I can give them is to compare both together, & where there is no real difference (as in the Tranflation of controverted places I believe there is very little) there to be confident, that they are right ; where they differ, therefore to be prudent in the choice or the guides they follow. Which way of proceeding, if it be iubjeft to fbme pofttble Error, is it the beft that either we, or you have; and it is not required that we life any bet- ter than the beft we have. a8. You Scripture the only Rule fcr Judging Controverts. % 7 28. You will fay^Dependance on your Churches infallibility u a better. I anfwer, it would be lb, if we could be infallibly cer- tain, that your Church is infallible, that is, if it were either evident of it felf, and feen by its own light, or could be reduced unto and fetled upon fbme Principle that is lb. But feeing you your felves do not (b much as pretend, to enforce us to the belief hereof, by any proofs infallible and convincing, but only to induce us to it, by fuch as are, by" your confeffion, only probable, and prudential motives ; certainly it will be to very little purpoie, to put off your uncertainty for the firft turn, and to fall upon it at the fecond : to pleafe your felves in building your Houfe upon an imaginary Rock, when you your felves lee and confefs, that this very Rock Hands it felf at the beft but upon a frame of Timber. I anfwer fecondly, that this cannot be a better way, becaufe we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible, and indeed hath not the real prefcription of this priviledge, but only plea£ eth her felf with a falfe imagination and vain prelumpti- onofit: as I mall hereafter demonftrate by may unan- swerable arguments. % I . But, fe e ing the belief of the Scripture is. a necejjary thing, and caftnot be proved by Scripture , hoiv can the Church of England teach, as (he dothy Art. 6. That all things necejjary are contained in Scripture ? ;i. I have anfwered this already. And here again I fay, That all but Cavillers will eafily underftand the mean- ing of the Article to be, That all the Divine Verities, which Chrift revealed to his Apoftles, and the Apoftles taught the Churches,are contained in Scripture. That is; all the material Obje&s of our Faith ; whereof the Scripture is none, but only the means of convey ing them unto us : which we believe not finally, and for it felf, but for the matter contained in it. So that if men did believe the Doctrine contained in Scripture, it mould no way hinder their Sal- vation, not to know whether their were any Scripture or no. Thofe Barbarous Nations Irenaus fpeaks of were in this cafe, and yet no doubt but they might be fayed. The end that God aims at, is the belief of the Golpel, the 88 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverjies. the Covenant between God and Man ; the Scripture he hath provided as a means for this end, and this alio we are to believe, but not as the laft Objed of our Faith, but as the inftrument of it. When therefore we fub- fcribe to the 6. Art. you muft underfrand that, by Articles of Faith, they mean the final and ultimate Objeds of it. and not the means and inftrumental Obje&s ; ; %. Bur, ¥ rot eft ants agree not in aftigmng the Canon of Holy Scripture. Luther and Illyricus rejett the E fifth of S. James. Kemnitius, and other Luth. the fecond of Peter, the fecond and third of John. The Efifih to the Heb. the Efiftle of James, of Jude, and the Apocalyps. Therefore without the Authority of the Church, no certainty can be had what Scrip- ture is Canonical. 34. Soalfb the Ancient Fathers, and not only Fathers, but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the Au- thority of the very fame Books : and by their difference mewed,- they knew no neceffity of conforming themfelves herein to the judgment of your or any Church. For had they done fo, they muft have agreed all with that Church, and confequently among themi elves. Now I pray tell me plainly, Had they f ufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonical, or had they not? If they had0 not, it feems there is no fiich great harm or danger in not hav- ing iuch a certainty whether lbme Books be Canonical or no, as you require: If they had, why may not Prote- ftants, notwithftanding their differences, have fufficient certainty hereof, as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches, notwithftanding theirs ? 35, You proceed. And whereas the Proteftants of Engldnd m the 6. Art. have thefe Words, In the name of the Holy Scripture -we do underftand thofe Books, of who ft Authority was never any doubt in the Church ; you demand, what they mean by them ? Whether that by the Churches con- fent they are affuredwhat Scriptures be Canonical ? I Anfwer for them. Yes, they are lb. And whereas you infer from hence, This is to make the Church Judge : I have told you already, That of this Controverfie we make the Church the Judge • but net theprelent Church, much lefs the Scripture the only Rule forjudging Controverts. 89 the prefent Roman Church, but the content and Teftimo- ny of the Ancient and Primitive Church. Which though K be but a highly probable inducement, and no demonftra tive enforcement, yet methinks you fhould not deny but it may be a fiifficient ground of Faith : Whofe Faith, even of the Foundation of all your Faith, your Churches Au- thority, is built laftly and wholly upon Prudential Mo- tives. 36. But by this Rule the whole Book tf/'Efrher muft quit the Canon ; becaufe it was excluded by fome in the Church : by MelitOy Athanafius, and Gregory Nazianzen. Then for ought I know he that fhould think he had reafon to ex- clude it now, might be ftill in the Church as well as Melito, Athanafius, Nazianzen were. And while you thus inveigh againft Luther, and charge him with Luci- ferian Herefies,, for doing that which you in this very place confefs that Saints in Heaven before him have done, are you not partial and a Judge of evil thoughts ? 37. Luther s cenfures of Ecclefiafes, Job, and the Pro- phets, though you make fuch Tragedies with them, I fee none of them but is capable of a tolerable conftru&ion, and far from having in them any Fundamental Herefie. He that condemns him for faying, the Book of Ecclefi- tifles is not full, That it bath many abrupt things, condemns him, for ought I can fee, for fpeaking truth. And the reft of the cenftire is but a bold and blunt expreffion of the fame thing. The Book of Job may be a true Hifto- ry, and yet as many true Stones are, and have been an Argument of a Fable to fee before us an example of Pa- tience. And though the Books of the Prophets were not written by themfelves, but by their Difciples, yet it does not follow that they were written cafually : (Though I hope you will not damn all for Hereticks, that fay, lome Books of Scripture were written cafually.) Neither is there any reafon they {hould the fooner be called in queftion for being written by their Difciples, feeing being fb writ- ten they had atteftation from themfelves. Was the Pro- phefie of Jeremy the lefs Canonical, for being written by Barucb ? Or becaufe S. Peter the Matter dictated the N Gofpel, ^o Scripture the only Rule for judging ^ontroverpes. Gofpel, and S. Mark the Scholar writ it, is it the more likely to be called in Qiieftion ? ;8. But leaving Luther , you return to our Englifi Ca- non of Scripture ; And tell us, that in the New Teflament, - by the above mentioned rule, {of whofe Authority was never any doubt in the Church ) divers Books mufi be difcancniz>ed. Not Co. For I may believe even thofe quefhoned Books to have been written by the Apoftles and to be Cano- nical : but I cannot in Reafon believe this of them fo un- doubtedly, as of thofe Bocks which were never quefiimed. At leaft I have no warrant to damn any man that jhall doubt of them or deny them now : having the example of Saints in Heaven , either to juftifie, or excule fuch their doubting or denial. 39. You obferve in the next place, that cur Jixtb Arti- cle , ffecifying by name all the Books of the Old Teftament, dmjfles over thefe of the New with this generality — All the Books of the New Teftament, as they are commonly received; we do receive, and account them Canonical : And in this you fancy to your felf a my fiery of iniquity. But if this be all trie fhuffling that the Church of England is guilty of, I believe the Church, as well as the King, may give for her Motto, Honi foit qui mat y penfe. For all the Bibles which fince the Compofing of the Articles have been ufed and allowed by the Church of England, do teftifie and even proclaim to the World, that by — Commonly re- ceived, they meant, received by the Church of Rome, and other Churches before the Reformation. I pray take the pains to look in them, and there you mall find the Books which the Church of England counts Apocryphal marked out and fevered from the reft, with this Title in the begin- ning. The Books called Apocrypha ; and with this dole or Seal in the End, The End of the Apocrypha. And having told you by name, and in particular, what Books only She Efteems Apocryphal, I hope you will not put Her to the trouble of telling you that the reft are in Her judg- ment Canonical. 40. But if by Commonly received, She meant, by the Church o/Rome ; Then by thejame reafon, mujt She receive divers Bocks of the Old Tcitament which She rejecls. Cer- Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverjies. a t 4 r. Certainly a very goo & Con fequence. The Church of England receives the Books of the New Teftament, which the Church of Rome receives ; Therefore ihe muft receive the Books of the Old Teftament which fhe receives. As if you mould fay, If you will do as we, in one thing, you muft in all things. If you will pray to God with us, you muft pray to Saints with us. If you hold with us., when we have reafbn on our fide., you muft de fb, when we have no reafon. 4;. But, with what Coherence can we fay in the former part of the Article, That by Scripture we mean thofe Books that were never doubted of; and in the latter fay, We receive all the Books of the New Teftament, as they are commonly received, whereas of the?n many were doubted } I anfwer. When they fay, ofwhofe Authority there was never any doubt in the Church, . They mean not, thofe only of whole Au- thority there was Amply no doubt at all, by any man in the Church ; But fuch as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church, or by all Churches, but had attefta- tion , though not Univerfal, yet at leaft fufficient to make eoniidering men receive them for Canonical. In which number they may well reckon thofe Epiftles which were fbmetimes doubted of by fbme, yet whofe number and Authority was not fb great, as to prevail againft the contrary fuffrages. 44. But, if to be commonly received, pafs for a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Teftament by, why not of the Old? You conclude many times very well, but ftill when you do fb, it is out of principles which no man grants. For who ever told you, that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the Neiv Tefiament by? Have you been trained up in Schools of fubtilty, and cannot you fee a great difference, between thefe two, We receive the Books of the New Tefiament as they are commonly received, and we receive thofe that are com- monly received, becaufe they are fo i To fay this, were indeed to make, being commonly received^ a Rule or Reafbn to know the Canon by. But to fay the former, doth no more make it a Rule, than you fhould make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them, if you mould N 1 fay, Scripture the only Rule for judging Controverjtes. fay, as you may, The Books of the New Tefiament we receive for Canonical, as they are received by the Church of England. 45. You demand, upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther agamfi you, in fome, and with you agamffi Lu- ther in others ? And I alfb demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon, and agree neither with us, nor Luther ? For lure your differing from us both, is of it felf no more apparently reafonable, than our agreeing with you in part, and in part with Luther. If you fay, your Churches Infallibility is your ground : I demand a- gain fome Infallible ground both for the Churches Infal- libility, and for this, that Tours is the Church; and fliall never ceafe multiplying demands upon demands, until you fettle me upon a Rock ; I mean, give fiich an anfwer, whofe Truth is lb evident that it needs no further evidence! If you fay, This is Universal Tradition : I reply, your Churches Infallibility is not built upon it, and that the Canon of Scripture, as we receive it, is. For we do not profefs our felves fo abfolutely, and undoubtedly certain ; neither do we urge others to be fo, of thole Books, which have been doubted, as of thoie that never have. 46. The Conclufion of your Tenth. §. is, That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it felf alone , but by fome extrinfecal Authority : Which you need not prove, for no Wife Man denies it. But then this authority is that of Univerfal Tradition, not of your Church. For to me it is altogether as a/J^Wy, that the Gofpel of Saint Matthew is the Word of God, as that all which your Church fays is true. 47. That Believers of the Scripture, by confidering the Divine matter, the excellent precepts, the glorious promifes contained in it, may be confirmed in their Faith, of the Scriptures Divine Authority ; and that a- mong other inducements and inforcements hereunto, internal arguments have their place and force, certainly no man of underllandeng can deny. For my part I profefs, if the Do&rine of the Scripture were not as good, and as fit to come from the Fountain of goodnels, as the Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverts. 9$ the Miracles, by which it was confirmed, were great, I fhould want one main pillar of my Faith, and for want of it, I fear fhould be much daggered in it. Now this and nothing elfe did the Doctor mean in faying, The Be- liever fees, by that glorious beam of Divine light which (hines in Scripture, and by many internal Arguments, that the Scrip- ture zs of Divine Authority. By this (faith he) he fees it, that is, he is moved to, and ftrengthened in his belief of it : and by this partly, not wholly ; by this, not alone, but with the concurrence of other Arguments. He that will qmrrel with him fur laying fo, muft find fault with the Mafter of the Sentences, and all his Scholars, for they all lay the lame. 48. In the next Divifion, out of your liberality, you will fuppofe, that Scripture, like to a corporal light, is by it flfalcne able to determine and move our underftand- mg to aflent : yet notwithftanding this luppofal, Faith fill (you fay) muf go before Scripture, becaufe as the light is vifible only to thofe that have eyes : fo the Scripture only to thofe that have the Eye of Faith. But to my underftand- ing, if Scripture do move and determine our Under (land- ing to aflent, then the Scripture, and its moving muft be before this aflent, as the caufe muft be before its own ef- fect ; now this very aflent is nothing elfe but Faith, and Faith nothing elfe than the Underftandings aflent. And therefore (upon this luppofal) Faith doth, and muft ori- ginally proceed from Scripture, as the effect from its proper caufe : and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be prefuppofed before the aflent of Faith, unto which it moves and determines, and confequently if this fiippo- fition of yours were true, there mould need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, Scripture it felf being able fas here you fuppofe) to determine and move the underftanding to aflent, that is to believe them, and the Verities contained in them. Neither is this to fay, that the Eyes with which we lee, are made by the light 'by which we fee. For you are miffaken much, if you conceive that in this companfon, Faith anfwers to the Eye. But if you will not pervert it, the Analogy muft, 94 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contreverjies. muft ftand thus-; Scripture muft anfwer to light; The Eye of the Soul, that is the Under/landing, or the facul- ty of aflenting, to the bodily Eye; And laftly aflenting or believing to the Ad of feeing. As therefore the light, determining the Eye to fee, though it prefiippofes the Eye which it determines, as every Action doth the Object on which it is imployed, yet it felf is prefiippofed and ante- cedent to the Act of feeing, as the caufe is always to its effect : So, if you will fuppofe that Scripture, like light, moves the understanding to aflent, The Underftanding ( that's the Eve and Object* on which it works j muft be before this influence upon it ; But the Aflent, that is the belief whereof the Scripture moves, and the under/land- ing is moved, which anivvers to the Act of feeing, muft come after. For if it did aflent already, to what purpofe mould the Scripture do that which was done before ? Nay indeed how were it poflible it mould be fo, anymore than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already? Or an Architect build an Houfe that is built already ? Or than this very world can be made again before it be un- made ? Traniubftantiation indeed is fruitful of fuch Mon- fters. But they that have not fworn themfelves to the defence of Error, will eafily perceive, that Jam factum facere, and Fabium infeclum facer e> are equally impoflible. But I digrefs. 49. The clofe of this Paragraph, is a fit cover for fuch a Dim. There you tell us, That if there muft be fome other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith, this can be no other than the Church, By the Church, we know you do, and muft underftand the Roman Church : fb that in effect you fay, no man can have Faith, but he muft be moved to it by your Churches Authority. And that is to fay, that the King and all other Froteftants3 to whom you write, though they verily think they are Chnftians and believe the Gofpel,,becaufe they aflent to the truth of it, and would willingly Die for it, yet indeed are Infi- dels and believe nothing. The Scripture tells us, The Heart of man knoweth no Man, but the Spirit of Man which is in him. And who are you, to take upon you to make us believe Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr 'over pes. 9? believe, that we do not believe, what we know we do? But if I may think verily that I believe the Scripture, and yet not believe it ; how know you that you believe the Roman Church ? I am as verily, and as ftrongly perfiiad- ed that I believe the Scripture, as you are that vou be- lieve the Church. And it I may be deceived, why may not you? Again, what more ridiculous , and againft fenfe and experience, than to affirm, That there are not Millions amongft you and us that believe, upon no other reafon than their Education, and the authority of their Parents and Teachers, and the Opinion they have of them ? The tendernefs of the fubject, and aptnefs to re- ceive impreffions, fupplving the defed and imperfe&ion of the Agent ! And will you profcnbe from Heaven all thofe believers of your own Creed, who do indeed lay the Foundation of their Faith (Tor I cannot call it bv any other namej no deeper than upon the Authority of their Father, or Matter, or Pariih Pneft ? Certainly, if thefe have no true Faith, your Church is very full of In- fidels. Suppofe Xaveriz/s by the Holinefs of his Life had converted lome Indians to Chriftiamty, who could ( for fb I will fuppofe ) have no knowledge of your Church but from him, and therefore mull: lait of all build their Faith of the Church upon their Opinion of Xaverim : Do thefe remain as very Pagans after their Conversion., as they were before ? Are they brought to aflent in their Souls, and obey in their Lives theGofpel of Chnft, only to be Tantalized and not laved, and not benefited but de- luded by it, becaufe, forfooth, it is a man and not the Church that begets Faith in them ? What if their motive to believe be not in reafon fufficient ? Do they therefore not believe what they do believe, becaufe they do it up- on fufficient motives ? They choofe the Faith imprudent- ly parhaps, but yet they do choole it. Unlefs you will have us believe that, that which is done, is not done, be- caufe it is not done upon good reafon : which is to fay, that never any man living ever did a foolifh a&ion. But yet I know not why the Authority of one Holy Man, which apparently has no ends upon me, joyned with the. goodneis 9 6 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over fie s. goodnefs of the Chriftian Faith, might not be a far great- er and more rational motive to me to embrace Chriftia- nity, than any I can have to continue in Faganifm. And therefore for fhame, if not for Love of Truth, you mufl recant this fancy when you write again : and fufrer true Faith to be many times, where your Churches Infal- libility has no hand in the begetting of it. And be con- tent to tell us hereafter, that we believe not enough, and not go about to perfuade us, we believe nothing, For fear with telling us what we know to be manifeftly falfe, you mould gain only this, Not to be believed when you fpeak truth. Some pretty Sophifms you may happily bring us to make us believe, we believe nothing : but Wile men know that Reafbn againft Experience is alwaies Sophiftical. And therefore as he that could not anfwer TLenos fubtilties a- gainft the exiftence of Motion, could yet confute them by doing that, which he pretended could not be done : So if you mould give me a hundred Arguments to per- fuade me, becaule I do not believe Tranfubftantiation, I do not believe in God, and the Knots of them I could not unty, yet I mould cut them in pieces with doing that, and knowing that I do fa, which you pretend I cannot do. 53. It is fuperfluous for you to prove out of S. Athana- fius, and Auftine that we mufi receive the facred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church. Underitanding by Church, as here you explain your fel£ The Credit of Tradition. And that not the Tradition of the Prefent Church, which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient, but fuch aTradi- dition} which involves an evidence of Faff, and from Hand to Hand, from Age to Age> bringing us up to the times and "Per fens of the Apoftles, and our Saviour Himfelf commeth to be confirmed by all thefe Miracles , and other Arguments, whereby they convinced their Doclrine to be true. Thus you. Now prove the Canon of Scripture which you receive by fuch Tradition and we will allow it. Prove your whole Doctrine, or the Infallibility of your Church by fuch a Tradition, and we will yield to you in all things. Take the alledged places of S. Athanafim3 and S. Auftin, in this fenfe. Scripture the only Rule forjudging Contr over fie s. 97 fenfe, (which is your own J and they will not prefs us any thing at all. We will fay, with Athanafius, That only four Gofpels are to be received, becaufe the Canons of the Holy and Catholick Church (understand of all Ages lince the per* fe<5hon of the Canon) have fo determined. 54. We will fubfcribe to S. Auftin, and fay, That we alfo would not believe the Gofpel, unlefs the Authority of the Catholick Church did move us3 (meaning by the Church, the Church of all Ages, and that fucceffion of Chnftians which takes in Chnfi himfelf and his Apoflles. ) Neither would TLwinglius have needed to cry out upon this faying, had he conceived as you now do, that by the Catholick Church, the Church of all Ages, fince Chriit, was to be underftood. As for the Council of Carthage, it may fpeak not of fiich Books only, as were certainly Canoni- cal, and for the regulating of Faith, but alfb of thofe which were only profitable, and lawful to be read in the Church. Which in England is a very flender Argument that the Book is Canonical, where every body knows that Apocryphal Books are read as well as Canonical. But howfoever, if you underftand by Fathers, not only their immediate Fathers and Predeceflbrs in the Gofpel, but the fucceflion of them from the A pottles; they are right intheThefis, that whatfcever js received from the fe Fathers, as Canonical, zs to be fo efieemed; Though in the applica- tion of it, to this or that particular Book they may hap- pily Err, and think that Book received as Canonical, which was only received as Profitable to be read; and think that Book, received alwaies, and by all, which was reje&ed by fbme, and doubted of by many. 55. But we cannot be certain, in what Language the Scriptures remain uncorrupted. C H I L. Not fo certain, I grant, as of that which we can demonftrate : But cer- tain enough, morally certain, as certain as the nature of the thing will bear. So certain we may be, and God requires no more. We may be as certain as S Aiifjkn was, who in his Jecond Book of Baptifm, agamjl tie Donxtijh, c. %. plainly implies, the Scripture might po'Jibly be corrupted. He means fiire in matters of little moment, fuch as con- O cern 98 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controversies. certain not the Covenant between God and Man. But thus he faith. The fame S. Auftin in his 48. Epift. clearly * Neatte enim mci,TiatesJ a That in his judgment, the only prefervative of fie pofuit in- the Scriptures integrity^ was the Tranfating it into fo many tegntas at que Languages y and the general and perpetual ufe and reading notitia liter a- of it in the Church : for want whereof the works of parti- rum ijuamlibet quemadmo- "Univeriai care ana aiiiigc dumfcripura attempts, ilnd this affirance of the Scriptures incorrup- Canonica tot tion, is common to us with him; we therefore are as cer- hngwrum It- rajn nereof as S^Aufiin was, and that I hope was certain Wjucceffiom enouSn- ^et *f tms does noc &tisfie you/ 1 fay farther, celebrationis We are as certain hereof as your own Tope Sixtus Quint us Ecciefiafticcc was. He in his Preface to his Bible tells us , b That in the cuftoditur ; prevefcigation of the true and genuine Text, it was perjpicu- €ontri*%uam oufly manifeft to all men, that there was no Argument more Itamenaui 7ub firm an^ certam t0 ^e f^ied upony than the Faith of Anci- nominiius A- ent Books. Now this ground we have to build upon as poftokrum well as He had : and therefore our certainty is as great, multaconfinge- anj ftands uponas certain ground as his did. rent. Frujtra quidem; kyia illafic ccmmendata,fic celebrata, fie not a eft. Verum quid pojjit ad- verfus liter as non Canonic a author it ate fundatas etiam bine demonjlrabit impia cotia- tus audacne, quod (3 adverfus eos qua tanta notitue mole firmatce font, jefe engere tion pratermifit. Aug. cp. 48. ad Vincent, contra Donut 8c Rogat. ^ In bac Germa- ni textus pervcftigatione, /at is perfpicue inter omnes conftat, nullum arrgumentum ejfe certius ac firmius, quam antiquorem p>robatorum codicum latmorum fidem, &c. Jic Sixtus in praefat. 56. This is not all Ihave to fay in this matter. For I will add moreover, that we are as certain in what Lan- guage the Scripture is uncorrupted, as any man in your Church was, until Clement the gch fet forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar Tranf lation. For you do not, nor cannot, without extreme impudence deny, that until then, there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of your Church, and thoie very frequent in various lections : all which Copies might poffibly be falfe in fome things, but more than one lore of them, could not poffibly be true in all things. Neither were it lefi impudence Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverftes. 97 impudence to pretend, that any man in your Church, could until demerits s time have any certainty what that one true Copy and reading was (if there were any one perfe&ly true.) Some indeed chat had got Sixtm bis Bi- ble, might after the Edition of that very likely think themlelvescock-fure of a peifed true uncorrupted Tran- slation, without being beholden to Clement ; but how fouly they were abuled and deceived that thought So, the Edition of Clemens, differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places, doth Sufficiently demonftrate. 57. This certainty therefore in what Language the Scripture remains uncorrupted, is it neceffary to have it, or is it not ? If it be not, I hope we may do well enough without it. Ifitbeneceflary, what became of your Church ' for 1 500 Years together? All which time you mult con- fers ihe had no luch certainty : no one man being able truly and upon good ground to fay, This or that Copy of the Bible is pure, and perfect, and uncorrupted in all things. And now at this prefent, though fome of you are grown to a higher degree of Preemption in this point, yet are you as far as ever, from any true and real, and rational aiTuranceof the abfolute purity of your Authentick Tran- slation : which I fuppofe my Self to have proved unan- iwerably in divers places. 58. Ad 16. §.] CM. Objects to Protefiants, That their Tranflations of the Scripture are "very different, and by each other mutually condemned. Luthers Tranjlation by Zwinghus, and others : That of the Zwinglians by Luther. The Tran- jlation of Oecolampadius, by the Divines of Bafil : that of Caftalio by Beza : That of Beza by Caftalio. To at of . Calvin, by Carolus Molinauis. That of Geneva by M. Parks, and King James. And laftly one of our Tranflations by the Puritans. 59. CHIL. All which might have been as juftly ob- jected againlt that great variety of Tranflations extant in the Primitive Church, and made ufe of by the Fathers and Doctors of it. For which I defire not that my word, but S. Auftms may be taken. They which have Tranflated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greeks may be num- O Z bnJ, 100 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. bred, but the Latine Interpreters are innumerable. For when- foever any one, in the firft times of Chriftianity , met with a Greek Bible, and feemed to htmfelf to have fome ability in both Languages, he prefently ventured upon an Interpretation. So He, in his fecond Book of Chrifiian Doclrine. Cap. 1 1 . Of all thefe, that which was called the Italian Tranflauon was efteemed bed ; fb we may learn from the fame S. Aujtin in the 15. Chap, of the fame Book. Amongjt all thefe Interpretations ( faith he) let the Italian be preferred : for it keeps clofer to the Letter, and is perjpicuous in the fenfe. Yet fo far was the Church of that time from perfuming up- on the abfolute purity and perfe&ion, even of this beft Tranflation, that S. Hierome thought it necellary to make a new Tranflation of the Old Tefiament, out of the He- brew Fountain, (which himfelf teftifies in his Book de Viris U'ujtribus,) And to corred: the vulgar verfion of the New Te/tament, according to the truth of the Original Greek ; amending many Errors which had crept into it, whether by the miftake of the Author, or the negligence of the Tranfcribers ; which work he undertook and per- formed at the requeft of Damafus, Bimop of Rome. Ton confer ain me ( faith he) to make a new Work of an old : that after the Copies of the Scriptures have been difperfed through the whole World, I JJiould fit as it were an Arbitra- tor amongft them, and becauje they vary among themfelves^ fhould determine what are thofe things {in them) which con- fent with the Greek verity. And after : Therefore this prefent Preface promifes the four Gofpels only corrected by col- lation with Greek Copies, But that they ?mght not be very diffonant from the Cujlome of the Latine reading, I have fo tempered with my (tile, the Tranflation of the Ancients, that, thoje things amended wich did Jeem to change the fenfe, other things I have Jufferedto remain as they were. So that in this matter Protectants muft either ftand or fall with the Pri- mitive Church. 62. C. M. But the Faith of Proteftants relies upon Scrip- ture alone; Scripture is delivered to mo ft of them by Tran- Jlations ; Tranjlations depend upon the skill and honefty of Men, who certainly may Err becauje they are Men> and certainly do Scripture the only Rule for judging Cov.tr over fie s. 10I do Err, at leafi feme of them, becaufe their Tranfaticns are contrary. It feems then the Faith, and confequently the SaL vat ion ofProtQftmtsrelies upon fallible and uncertain grounds. 63. CHIL. This Obje&ion, though it may feem to do you great fervice for the prefent ; yet I fear you will re- pent the time that ever you urged it againft us as a fault, that we make mens falvation depend upon uncertainties. For the Obje&ion returns upon you many ways, as firft thus; The Salvation of many Millions of Papifts ( as they fup- pofe and teach,) depends upon their having the Sacrament of Pennance truly adminiftred unto them. This again upon the Minifter's being a true Prieft. That luch or fuch a man is Prieft, not him (elf, much lefs any other can have any poffible certainty : for it depends upon a great many contingent and uncertain fuppofais. He that will pretend to be certain of it, muft undertake to know for a certain all thefe things that follow. 64. Firft that he was Baptized with due matter. Se- condly, with the due form of Words, (which he cannot know, unlefs he were both prefent and attentive.) Third- ly, he muft know that he was Baptized with due Inten- tion, and that is, that the Minifter of his Baptifin was not a fecret Jew, nor a Moore, nor an Atheifi, (of all which kinds, I fear experience gives you jult caufe to fear, that Italy and Spain have Pnefts not a few,) but a Chnftian in Heart, as well as Profeffion; (otherwile be- lieving the Sacrament to be nothing, in giving it he could intend to give nothing.) nor a Samofateman, nor an Ar- nan \ but one that was capable or having due intention, from which they that believe not the Doctrine of the Trinity are excluded by you. And laftly, that he was neither Drunk not Diftra&ed at the adminiitration of the Sacrament, nor out of negligence or malice omitted his intention. 65. Fourthly, he muft undertake to know, that the Biihop which ordained him Prieft .ordained him compleat- ly with due Matter, Form and Intention : and confequent- ly, that he again was neicher Jew, nor Moore, nor Athuft, nor liable to any fuch exception, as is unconliftentwith due Intention in giving the Sacrament of Orders. 66. I oi Scripture the only Rule for Judging Ccntreverfies. 66. Fifthly, he muft undertake to know, that the Bi- mop which made him Prieft, was a Pried him (elf, for your rule is, Nihil dat quod non habet : And consequently, that theYe was again none of the former nullities in his Baptifm, which might make him incapable of Ordinati- on; nor no invalidity in his Ordination, but a true Prieft to ordain him again, the requifite matter and form and due intention all concurring. 67. Laftlv, he muft pretend to know the fame of him that made him Prieft, and him that made Him Prieft, even until he comes to the very Fountain of Pnefthood. For take any one in the whole train and fucceftion of Ordainers, and fuppofe him, by reafbn of any defeft, only a (uppofed and not a true Prieft, then according to your Doctrine he could not give a true, but only a iuppoied Prieithood ; and they that receive it of him, and again, they that derive it from them, can give no better than they received ; receiving nothing but a name and fhadow, can give nothing but a name and ftiadow : and ib from Age to Age, from Generation to Generation be- ing equivocal Fathers, beget only equivocal Sons ; No Principle in Geometry being more certain than this, That the unjuppliable defect of any necefj'ary Antecedent, muft needs caufe a nullity of all thofe Confequences 'which depend upon it. In fine, to know this one thing, you muft firft know Ten Thou (and others, whereof not any one is a thing that can be known ; there being no neceffity that it mould be true, which only can quahfie any thing for an Object of Science, but only, at the beft, a high degree of proba- bility that it is fb. But then, that of Ten Thoufand pro- bables no one mould be ralfe ; that of Ten Thoufand requifites, whereof any one may fail, not one mould be wanting, this to me is extremely improbable, and even Coufin-german to Impoffible. So that the affurance here- of is like a Machine compofed of an innumerable multi- tude of pieces, of which it is ftrangely unlikely but ibme will be out of order; and yet if any one be (6, the whole Fabnck of neceffity falls to the ground. And he that lhall put together, and maturely confider all the poffible ways V Scripture the only Rule for J 'udging Contr over pes. \o\ ways of lapfing, and nullifying a Priefthood in the Church oi- Rome, I believe will be very inclinable to thin k, that it is an hundred to one, that amongft a hundred feeming Priefts, there is not one true one. Nay, that it is not a thing very improbable, that amongft thofe many milli- ons, which make up the Rowijl) Hierarchy, there are not twenty true. But be the truth in this what it will be, once this is certain, that They which makes mens Salvation (as you do) depend upon Prieftly Abfblution, and this again fas you do) upon the Truth and reality of the Priefthood that gives it, and tins laftly upon a great multitude of ap- parent uncertainties, are not the fitteft men in the World, to objedfc to others as a horrible crime, That they make mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain Foundati- ons. And let this be the firft retortion of your Argument. 68. But fuppole this difficulty aflbiled, and that an An- gel from Heaven ihould afcertain you (for other ailiirances you can have nonej that the Perlbn, you make ufe of, is a true Pried, and a competent Minifter of the Sacra- ment of Pennance ; yet ftill the doubt will remain, whe- ther he will do you that good which he can do, whether he will pronounce the abfolving words with intent to abfblve you ! For perhaps he may bear you fome fecret malice, and projed to him felf your damnation, for acom- pleat Italian revenge. Parhaps fas the tale is of a Prieft that was lately burnt in France) he may upon feme con- ditions have compaded with the Devil to give no Sacra- ments with Intention. Laftly, he may be (tor ought you can poilibly know) a fecret ferj, or Moor, or Anti-Tri- nitarian, or perhaps fuch a one as is fb far from intending your forg;ivenefs of fins and Salvation by this Sacrament, that in his heart he laughs at all thefe things, and thinks Sin nothing, and Salvation a word. All thefe doubts you muft have clearly refolved (which can hardly be done but by another Revelation,) before you can upon good grounds affure your felf, that your true Pneft gives you true and effectual abfolution. So that when you have done as much as God requires for your Salvation, yet can you by no means be fecure, but that you may have the ill 1 04 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over fie s. ill kick to be Damned : which is to make Salvation a matter of chance, and not of choice, and which a man may fail of, not only by an ill life, but by ill Fortune. Venlv a mod comfortable Do&rine for a confidering man lying upon Death bed, who either feels or fears that his repentance is but attrition only, and not contrition, and confequently believes that if he be not abfolved real- ly by a true Pried, he cannot poffibly efcape damnation. Such a man for his comfort, you tell, firft(you that will have mens Salvation depend upon no uncertainties^ that though he verily believe that his forrow for fins is a true fbrrow, and his purpofe of amendment a true purpofe ; yet he may deceive himfelf, perhaps it is not, and if it be not, he muft be damned. Yet you bid him hope well : But Spes eft rei inccrttZ nomcn. You tell him fecondly, that though the party he confefles to, feem to be a true Pried, yet for ought he knows, or for ought himfelf knows, by reafbn of fome fecret undifcernable invalidity in his Bap- tifrn or Ordination, he may be none : and if he be none, he can do nothing. This is a hard laying, but this is not the worft. You tell him thirdly, that he may may be in fuch a ftate that he cannot, or if he can, that he will not give the Sacrament with due Intention : and if he does not, all's in vain. Put cafe a man by thefe confederations mould be call: into fome agonies ; what advice, what comfort would you give him ? Verily I know not what you could fay to him, but this ; that fird for the Qualification 1 equired on his part, he might know that he defired to have true fbrrow, and that that is fuiEeient. But then if he mould ask you, why he might not know his fbrrow to be a true fbrrow, as well as his delire.to be fbrrowful, to be a true defire, I believe you would be put to filence. Then lecondly, to quiet his fears, concerning the Prk$ and his intenti- on you inould tell him, by my advice, that Gods goodnefs (which will not fuffer him to damn men for not doing better than their beftj will lupply all luch defects as to humane endeavours were unavoidable. And therefore though his Pncft w e indeed no Pried, yet to him he mould be as if he were one : and if he gave Abfolution with- Scripture the only Rule forjudging Controverfies, joy without Intention; yet in doing fo he fhould hurt himfelf only and not his penitent. This were fbme comfort in deed, and this were to fettle mens Saltation upon reafon- able certain grounds. But this I fear you will never fay ; for this were to reverfe many Do&rines eitablillied by your Church, and befides to degrade your Priefthood from a great part of their honour, by leiiening the Uriel: ne- ceflity of the Laities dependance upon them. For it were to fay, that the Triefts Intention is not necejfary to the obtaining of abfolution ; which is to fay, that it is not in the Parfbns power to damn whom he will in his Parifh, becaufe by this Rule, God mould fiipply the defect which his malice had caufed. And befides it were to fay, that Infants dying without Baptifm might be faved, God fupplying the wane of Baptifm which to them is unavoidable. But beyond all this, it were to put into my mouth a full and fatisfy- ing anfwer to your Argument, which I am now return- ing, fb that in anfwenng my obje&ion you mould anfwer your own. For then I ihould tell you, that it were al- together as abhorrent from the goodnefs of God, and as repugnant to it, to fiiffer an ignorant Lay- mans Soul to penih, meerly for being mifled by an undifcernable falfe Tranflation, which yet was commended to him by the Church, which ("being of neceflity to credit fbme in this matter ) he had reafon to rely upon either above all other, or as much as any other, as it is to damn a penitent fin- ner for a fecret defect in that defired Abfolution, which his Goftly Father perhaps was an Atheifi and could not give him, or was a villiain and would not. This anfwer therefore, which alone would ferve to comfort your pe- nitent in his perplexities, and to aflure him that he can- not fail of Salvation if he will not, for fear of mconve- niencies you muft forbear. And feeing you mufr, I hope you will come down from the Pulpit, and Preach no more againfl others for making mens Salvation depend up- on fallible and uncertain grounds, left by judging others, you make your felves and your own Church inexcufable, who are ftrongly guilty of this fault, above all the men and Churches of the World : whereof I have already P given loo Scripture the only Rule for ^iidgmgContrcverfuu given you two very pregnant demonft rations , drawn from your p;e(umptions tying God and Salvation to your Sacraments ; And the efficacy of them to your Pnefls Qualifications and Intentions. 69. Your making the Salvation of Infants depend on Baptifm a Cafual thing, and in the power of man to confer, or not confer, would yield me a Third of the lame nature. And your fiifpending the fame on the Ba- ptizers intention a Fourth. And lafttyyour making the Real prefence of Chi ill: in the Eucharift depend upon the cafuakies of the Conlecrators true Piieithood and Intention, and yet commanding men to believe it for certain that he is prelent, and to adore the Sacrament, which according to your Do&rine, for ought they can poffibly know, may be nothing elfe but a piece of Bread, fb expofing them to the danger of Idolatry, and con(e- quentlv of Damnation, doth offer me a Fifth demqnftra- tion of the fame conclufion, if I thought fit to infill up- on them. But I have no mind to draw any more out of this Fountain ; neither do I think it Charity to cloy the Reader with uniformity, when the Subject affords variety. 70. Sixthly, thererefore I return it thus. The Faith of Tapijts relies alone upon their Churches infallibility. That there is any Church infallible, and that theirs is it, they pretend not to believe, but only upon prudential mo- tives. Dependance upon prudential motives they confefs to be obnoxious to a pofltbility of erring. What then re- mained! but Truth, Faith, Salvation, and all muft in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground ! 7/. Seventhly, The Faith of Papifts relies upon the Church alone. The Do&rine of the Church is delivered to moft of them by their Panfh Prieft, or Ghoftly Fa- ther, or at leaft by a company of Priefts, who for the moft part lure, are men and not Angels, in whom no- thing is more certain than a moft certain poffibility to Err. What then rcmaineth but that Truth, Faith, Sal- vation and all, muft in them rely upon a fallible and un- certain ground. 71. Eighthly Scripture the only Rule for Judging Gontrofrerfies. 107 71. Eighthly thus. It is apparent and undeniable, that many Thoufands there are, who believe your Religion upon no better grounds, than a man may have for the be- lief almoft of any Religion. As fbme believe it, becaufe their Forefathers did lb,and they were good People. Some, becaufe they were Chnftened, and brought up in it. Some, becaufe it is the Religion of their Country, where all other Religions are perfecuted and profcribed. Some, becaufe Frot eft ants cannot (hew a perpetual fucceflion of Profeflors of all their DoCtrine. Some, becaufe the fervice of your Church is more (lately, and pompous, and magnificent. Some, becaufe they find comfort in it* Some, becaufe your Religion is farther fpread, and hath more Profef- lors of it, than the Religion of Pro/ eft ants. Some, becaufe your Pnefls compafs Sea and Land to gain Profelytes to it. Laftly, an infinite number, by chance, and they know not why, but only becaufe they are Hire they are in the right. This which I fay is a mod certain experimented Truth, and if you will deal ingenioufly, you will not de- ny it. And without queftion he that builds his Faith up- on our EngliJI) Tranflation, goes upon a more prudent ground than any of thefe can, with reafbn, be pretend- ed to be. What then can you alledge but that, with you, rather than with us, Truth and Faith and Salvati- on and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds. 7;. Ninthly. Your Rhemijh and Dow ay Tranflations are delivered to your Proielytes, ( fuch I mean that are difpenced with for the reading of them,) for the directi- on of their Faith and Lives. And the fame may be faid of your Tranflations of the Bible into other national Languages , in refpect of thofe that are licenfed to read them. This I pre fume you will confefs. And moreover, that thefe Tranflations came not by inspira- tion, but were the productions of humane Induftry ; and that not Angels, but men were the Authors of them. Men I fay, meer men, fubjeCt to the fame Pa (lions and to the fame poffibility of erring with our Tranilators. And then how does it not unavoidably follow, that id them which depend upon thefe Tranflations for their di- P i rection lo8 Scripture the only Rule for J udging Contr over fie s. re&ion, Faith, and Truth, and Salvation, and all relies upon fallible and uncertain grounds ? 74. Tenthly and laftly f to lay the Axe to the Root of the Tree,) the Helena which you fo fight for, your vul- gar Translation, though feme of you believe, or pretend to believe, it to be in every part and particle of it, the pure and uncorrupted Word of God ; yet others among you, and thofe as good and zealous Catholicks as you, are not fb confident hereof. 75; Firfi, for all thofe who have made Tranilations of the whole Bible or any part of it different many times in fenle from the Vulgar, as Lyranm, Cajetan, Pagnine, Arias, Erafmus, Valla, Steuchm, and others,it is apparent and even palpable, that they never dreamt of any abibiute perfe&i on and authentical Infallibility of the Vulgar Tranflation. For if they had, why did they in many places reject it and differ from it ? 76. Vega was prefent at the Council of Trent, when that decree was made, which made the Vulgar Edition (then not extant any where in the World) authentical ', and not to be reje&ed upon any pretence whatfbever. At the forming this decree Vega I {ay was prefent, un- derftood the mind of the Council, as well as any man, and prorefles that he was inftru&ed in it by the Presi- dent of it, the Cardinal S. Cruce. And yet he hath writ- ten that the Council in tins decree , meant to pronounce this Tran flat ion free (not fimply from all Error) but only from fuch Errors, out of which any opinion pernicious to Faith and Manners might be collected. This, Andradius in his defence of that Council reports of Vega, and aflents to it himfelfi Driedo, in his Book of the Tranflation of Holy Scripture, hath thefe Words very pregnant and pertinent to the fame purpofe ; The See Apofiolick, hath approved or accepted Hie- roms Edition, not as fo wholly confonant to the Original, and fo entire and pure and reft or ed in all things, that it may not - he lawful for any man, either by comparing it with the Foun- tain to examine it, or in fome places to doubt, whether or no Hierome did underfiand the true Jenfe of the Scripture ; but only as an Edition to be preferred before all others then extant, and Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverjies. 1 09 and no where deviating from the Truth in the Rules of Faith and good Life. Mariana, even where he is a moft earneft Advocate for the Vulgar Edition, yet acknowleges the imperfe&ion of it in thefe Words, The faults of the ProEdn.vulg. Vulgar Edition are not approved by the Decree of the Council c. 21. p. 99- of Trent, a multitude whereof we did collet! from the varie- ty of Copies. And again, We maintain that the Hebrew and Greek, were by no ?neans rejected by the Trent Fathers : And that the Latin Edition is indeed approved, yet not fo} as if they did deny that fome places might be Tranflated more plainly , fome more properly ; whereof it 7i?ere eafie to produce innumerable examples. And this he there profefles to have learnt of Laines the then General of the Society : who was a great part of that Council, prefent at all the A&ions of it, and of very great authority in it. 77. To this fo great authority he adds a reafbn of his opinion, which with all indifferent men will be of a far greater authority. If the Council (faith he J had pur po fed to approve an Edition in all refpeffs, and to make it of equal authority and credit with the Fountains, certainly they ou^ht with exacl care firfi to have corrected the Errors of the In- terpreter : which certainly they did not. 78. Laftly BeHarmine himfelf, though he will not ac- Bell.deverbo knowledge any imperfe&ion in the Vulgar Edition, yet Dei). 2. c. u. he acknowledges that the cafe may, and does oft-times p. 120. fo fall out, that it is impoffible to difcern which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition, but only by recourfe unto the Originals, and dependence upon them. 79. From all which it may evidently be colle&ed, that though fbme of you flatter your felves with a vain imagi- nation of the certain abfblute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition ; yet the matter is not fo certain, and fb refolved, but that the beft Learned men amongft you are often at a ftand, and very doubtful fometimes whether your Vulgar Tranflation be true, and fometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Tranflation , and fometimes undoubtedly refolved that your Vulgar Tran- flation is no true Tranflation, nor confbnant to the O riginal, as it was at firft delivered. And what then can HO Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contrevtrfiet. hz alledged, but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred and inforced upon you, that not only in your Lay- men, but your Clergy-men and Scholars, Faith and Truth and Salvation and all depends upon fallible and uncertain grounds? And thus by Ten ieveral retortions of this one Argument, I have endeavoured to mew you., how ill you have complied with your own advice, which was to take heed of urging Arguments that might be returned upon you. I mould now by a direct aniwer, {hew that it preileth not us at all : but lhave in palling done it al- ready in the end of the iecond retortion of this Argu- ment., and thither I refer the Reader. 80. Whereas therefore, you exhort them that will have ajj'urancc of true Scriptures, to fly to year Church for it : I d'eiire to know (if they mould follow your advice) how they mould be allured that your Church can give them any fiich afTurance; which hath been confefjedly (b negli- gent, as to fuffer many whole Bocks of Scripture to be ut- terly loft. Again, in thofe that remain, confeffedly lo negligent, as to fuffer the Originals of thefe that remain to be corrupted. And laftly, io carelefs of prelerving the integrity of the Copies of her Tranflation, as to juffer infinite variety of Readmgs to come in to them, without keeping any one perfeel Copy, which might have been as the Standard, and Poljclet as his Canon to correct the reft bv. So that which was the true reading, and which the falfe, i: was utterly undifcernable, but only by comparing them with the Originals, which alfb ine pretends to be corrupted. 84. Ad 17. £.] In this Divifion you charge us 'with great uncertainty, cencernmg the true meaning of Scripture. Which hath been anfwered already, by laying, That if you (peak of plain places, (and in iuch all things necei- iary are contained,) we are lufficiently certain of the meaning of them, neither need they any Interpreter : If of obfeure and difficult places, we confels we are un- certain of the fenfe of many of them. But then we fay there is no necedity we mould be certain. For if Gods Will had been we mould have underftood him more certainly, he would have (poken more plainly. And we Scripture the cnly Rule for Judging Controverfies. t I J we fay befides, that as we are uncertain, (b are You too ; which he that doubts of, let him read your Com- mentators upon the Bible, and obferve their various and diflbnant Interp-etations.and he mall in this point need no further iansfacbon. 85. Obj. But feeing there are contentions among usi we are taught by nature and Scripture^ an d experience (fo you tell US out of M. Hooker) to feek for the ending of them} by fub- mitmg unto feme Judicical fentence3 whtreunto neither part may refine' to ft and. Anjw. This is very true. Neither fhould you need to perfuade us to feek fuch a means of ending all our Controversies, if we could tell where to find it. But this we know, that none is fit to pronounce, for all the World, a judicial definitive obliging Sentence in Controversies of Religion, but only fuch a Man, orfiich a lbciety of Men, as is authorized thereto by God. And befides we are able to demonftrate, that it nath not been the pleafure of God to give to any Man, or Society of Men any fuch authority. And therefore though we wifh. heartily that all Controverfies were ended, as we do that all fm were abolifht, yet we have little hope of the one, or the other, till the World be ended. And in the mean while, think it beft to content our felves with, and to perfuade others unto an Unity of Charity and mutual Tole- ration ; feeing God hath authorized no man to force all men to Unity of Opinion. Neither do we think it fit to ar- gue thus, To us it ieems convenient there mould be one Judge of all Controverfies for the whole World, there- fore God has appointed one : But more modeft and more reaibnable to collect thus, God hath appointed no fuch Judge of Controverfies, therefore, though it ieems to us convenient there fhould be one, yet it is not fb : Or though it were convenient for us to have one, yet it hath pleated God (for Reafons belt known to h-imfelf ) not to allow us this convenience. 87. Ad 18. §. ] That the true^ Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be received from the Church, you need not prove, for it is very eafily granted by them, who profefs 1 1 i Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over fie s. profefs themfelvcs very ready to receive all Truths, much more the true (enfe of Scripture,not only from the Church, but from any Society of men, nay from any man what- fbever. 88. That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is al- ways true, that is it which you would have (aid : and that in (bme fenfe may be alfo admitted, ws. If you fpeak of that Church ( which before you (peak of in the 14. §.) that is, of the Church of all Ages lince the Apoitles. Upon the Tradition of which Church, you there told us, We were to receive the Scripture , and to believe it to be the Word of God. For there you teach us, that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proof And that, fuch is Tradition , which from Hand to Hand-, and Age to Age bring-m up to the Times and Terfons of the Apo- ftles and our Saviour himfelf cometh to be confirmed by all thofe Miracles , and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doclrine to be true. Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that we muft receive the Sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church. The Tradition then of this Church you fay muft teach us what is Scripture: and we are willing to believe it. And now if you make it good unto us, that the fame Tradition down from the Apoftles, hath delivered from Age to Age, and from Hand to Hand, any Interpretation of any Scripture, we are ready to embrace that alfb. But now, if you will ar- gue thus : The Church in one fenfe, tells us what is Scripture, and we believe, therefore if the Church ta- ken in another fenfe, tell us, this or that is the meaning of the Scripture, we are to believe that alfo ; this is too traniparent Sophiitry, to take any but thofe that are wil- ling to be taken. 89. If there be any Tradkive Interpretation of Scrip- ture, produce it, and prove it to be fo ; and we em- brace it. But the Tradition of all Ages is one thing ; and the authority of the prefent Church, much more of the Roman Church, which is but a Part, and a corrup- ted Pa, 1 ot the Catholick Church, is another. And there- fore chough we are ready to receive both Scripture and the Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverjies. 1 1 5 the fenfe of Scripture upon the authority of 'Original Tra- dition, yet we receive neither the one., nor the other, up- on the Authority of your Church. 90. Firft for the Scripture, hovv can we receive them upon the Authority of your Church : who hold now thofe Books to be Canonical, which formerly you reje- cted from the Canon ? I inftance, in the Rook cf Maccha- bees, and the Epiflle to the Hebrews. The firft of theie you held not to be Canonical in S. Gregories time, or elle he was no member of your Church, for it is apparent " He held otherwife. The fecond you rejected from the * See Creg. Canon in S. Hieroms time, as it is evident out of b ma- ^./.r 9.^.1 3. ny places of his Works. ttific**C«*7ii 91 . If you fay (which is all you canj that Hierom ffake Efa. c. 6. in this of the particular Roman Church, not of the Roman thefe words. Catholick Church • I anfwer, there was none fieri in his y*ide& Pau. time, None that was called (b. Secondly, what he fpake "* f/^Jub of the Roman Church, muft be true of all other Churches, quamtatina if your Do6tnne of the neceflity of the Conformity of confuetudo t?o* all other Churches to that Church were then Catholick recfyit : and a- Do&rine. Now then choofe whether you will, either PIn, ln c- 8. in that the particular Reman Church, was not then believed ^e*e' ¥l?F' to be the Miftris of all other Churches fnotwkhffand- "sfaibiturttl- ing, Adhanc Ecclejiamnecejje eft omnem convenire Ecclefiam, cet earn Lan- hoc eft, omnes qui funt undique fideles, ; which Card. Perron, na Confuetudo and his Tranjlatrefs (b often tranflates falle : ) Or if you tnter Canom- fay ilie was, you will run into. a greater inconvenience, CM Scr'J,J?r<* and be forced to fay, that all the Churches of that time, &* rew/wj rejected from the Canon the Epiftle to the Hebrews, to- gether with the Roman Church. And confequently that the Catholick Church may Err in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonical. 92. Secondly, How can we receive the Scripture up- on the authority of the Roman Church, which hath deli- vered at feveral times Scriptures in many places, diffe- rent and repugnant, for Authentical and Canonical ? which is molt evident out of the place of Malachy, which is fb quoted for the Sacrifice of the Mafs, that either all the Ancient Fathers had falfe Bibles, or yours is fdfe. Q^ Moft H4 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over fie s. Mofl evident likewife from the comparing of the ftbry of Jacob in Gene/Is, with that which is cited out of it, in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, according to the vulgar E- dition. But above all, to any one, who mall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement , fo evident, that the wit of man cannot difguife it. 93. Thus you fee what reafbn we have to believe your Antecedent, That your Church it is -which mufi declare, what Books be true Scripture. Now for the confequence, that certainly 15 as liable to exception as the Antecedent. For if it were true, that God had promifed to aflifl: you, for the delivering of true Scripture, would this oblige him, or would it follow from hence that He had obliged him- felf, to teach you, not only fuiEciently, but effectually and irrififtably the true fenfe of Scripture ? God is not de- fective in things neceilary : neither will he leave him- felf without witnefs, nor the World without means of knowing his will and doing it. And therefore it was ne- ceilary that by his Providence he mould preferve the Scrip- ture from any undifcernable corruption, in thole things which he would have known : otherwife it is apparent, it had not been his will, that thefe things mould be known, the only means of continuing the knowledg of them being penfhed. But now neither is God laviih in fuper- fluities, and therefore having given us means fufficient for our dire&ion, and power fufficient to make ufe of thefe means, he will not conftrain or neceffitate us to make ufe of thefe means. For that were to crofs the end of our Creation, which was to be glorified by our free obedience: whereas neceffity and freedom cannot ftand together. That were to reverfe the Law which he hath prefcribed to himfelf in his dealing with men, and that is, to fet Life and Death before him, and to leave him in the hands of his own CounfeL God gave the Wifemen a Star to lead them to Chnfi, but he did not neceffitate them to follow the guidance of this Star : that was left to their liberty. God gave the Children of Ifrael a Fire to lead them by Night, and a Pillar of Cloud by Day, but he conftrained no man to follow them : that was left to their Scripture the only Rule for yudging Controverfies. j j • their liberty. So he gives the Churchy the Scripture : which in thofe things which are to be believed or done, are plain and eafie to be followed, like the Wifemens Star. Now that which he defires of us on our part, is the Obedience of Faith, and love of the Truth, and de- fire to rind the true fenfe of it, and induftry in fearcbing it, and humility in following, and Conftancy in profel- fing it : all which if he mould work in us by an abfolute irrefiftible neceflity, he could no more require of us, as our duty, than he can of the Sun to fhine, of the Sea to Ebb and Flow, and of all other Creatures to do thofe things which by meer neceflity they muft do, and cannot choofe. Befides, what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church u infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture, whereas there are Thoufands of places of Scripture, which you do not pretend certainly to un- derstand, and about the Interpretation whereof, your own Doctors differ among themfelves ? If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture, why do not your Do&ors follow her infalli- ble direction ? And if they do, how comes fuch diffe- rence among them in their Interpretations ? 94. Again, why does your Church thus put her Can- dle under a Bufhel, and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly, thus long wrapt up in Napkins ? Why fets me not forth Infallible Commentaries or Ex- pofitions upon all the Bible ? Is it becaufe this would not be profitable for Chriftians, that Scripture mould be In- terpreted ? Is it blafphemous to fay fb. The Scripture it felr tells us, AH Scripture is profitable. And the Scripture is not (o much the Words as the Senfe. And if it be not profitable, why does fhe imploy particular Doctors to in- terpret Scriptures fallibly ? unlefs we muft think that fal- lible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable, and in- fallible Interpretations would not be (b ? 95. If you fay the Holy Gho(l3 which ajfifis the Church in interpreting, will move the Church to interpret when he fiall think fit j and that the Church will do it when the Holy Ghofi (hall move her to do it : I demand whether the Ho- Q.* ly 2l6 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. ly Ghofts moving of the Church to fuch works as thele be refiftible by the Church, or irrefiftible. If refiftible, then the Holy Ghoft may move, and the Church may not be moved. As certainly the Holy Ghoft 'doth always move to an Action, when he mews us plainly that it would be for the good of men, and Honour of God. As he that hath any fenfe will acknowledge that an m- fillible expoiicion of Scripture could not but be, and there is no conceivable reafon, why fuch a work mould be put off a day, but only becaufe you are confcious to your (elves, you cannot do it, and therefore make excu- ies. But if the moving of the Holy Ghoft be irrefiftible, and you are not yet ib moved to go about this work ; then I confels you are excufed. But then I would know, whether thofe Popes which lb long deferred the calling of a Council for the Reformation of your Church, at length pretended to be effected by the Council of Trent, whether they may excufe themfelves,for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghoft to do it.?I would know like wile, as this motion is irrefiftible when it comes, fo whether it be lb limply neceflary to the moving of your Church to any liich publick Action, that it cannot poflibly move without it? That is, whether the Tope now could not, if he would, leat himlelf in Cathedra, and fall to writing ex- politions upon the Bible for the directions of Chriftians to the true lenle of it ? If you fay he cannot, you will make your felf ridiculous. If he can, then I would know, whether he mould be infallibly directed in thefe exposi- tions, or no ? If he mould, then what need he to itav for irrefiftible motion ? Why does he not go about this noble work prefencly ? If he mould not, How mail we know that the calling of the Council of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion, or upon humane im- portunity and fuggeftion, and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghoft ? And confequently how mall we know whether he were affiftant to it or no, leeing he aftifts none but what he himlelf moves to ? And whether he did move the Pope to call this Council, is a fecret thing, which we cannot poflibly know, nor perhaps the %Pope himlelf 96. [£ Scripture the only Rule for Judging Ccntroverfies. 1 1 7 96. If you fay, your meaning is only, That the Church (hall be infallibly guarded from giving any falfe fenfe of any Scripture, and not infallibly a jfi [ted pcftively to give the true fenfe of all Scripture : I put to you your own Qiieftion, why mould we believe the Holy Ghoft will ftay there ? Or, why may we not as well think he will ftay at the firft thing, that is, in teaching the Church what Books be true Scripture? For if the Holy Ghofts adiftance be promiied to all things profitable, then will he be with them infallibly, not only to guard them from all Errors, but to guide them to all profitable truths, fuch as the true (enfes of all Scripture would be. Neither could he ftay there, but defend them lrrefiftibly from a[l Vices ; Nor there neither, but infule into them irrehftibly all Vermes : for all thele things would be much for the be- nefit of Chriftians. If you fay, he cannot do this with- out taking away their free-will in living ; I (ay neither can he neceflitate men to believe aright, without taking away^ their free-will in believing and in profeffing their belief. 97. Obj. To the place of S. Auftin, ( I would not be- lieve the Gofpel, unlefs the Authority of the Church did move me, Contr. ep. Fund. c. 5. ) Anfw. I anfwer, That not the Authority of the pre (en t Church, much led of a Part of it (as the Roman Church is) was that which alone moved Saint Auftin to believe the Gofpel, but the perpetual Tradition of the Church of all Ages. Which you your felr have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is proved, and which it felf needs no proof ; and to which you have referred this very faying of S. Auftin, Ego vero Evangelw non crede- rem mfi, &c.p. 5 5. And in the next place which you cite out of his Book De UtiL Cred. c. 14. he (hews, that his motives to helieve, were, Fame, Celebrity, Confent, Antiquity. And feeing this Tradition, this Conient, this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Mumchaw, as to believe the Gofpel, (the Chnftian Tra- dition being as full againft Manicham as it was for the Gofpel) therefore he did well to conclude upon thefe grounds y 1 1 g Serif ture the only Rule for Judging Contr 'over fie s. grounds,, that he had as much reafon to disbelieve Ma- nick*usyzs to believe the Gofpel. Now if you can truly fay, that the fame Fame, Celebrity, Confent, Antiquity, that the fame Univerfal and Original Tradition, lies a- gainft Luther and Calvin, as did againft Mamchaus, you may do well to apply the Argument againit them; other- wife it will be to little purpole to fubititute their names inftead of Munich Sec. I fay Thirdly. Whereas fbme Frotefiants make the Scrip- ture Judge of Controverfies, that they have the Autho- rity of Fathers to warrant their manner of (peaking: as mcn^ .5. m jo^ ^ fpea] without T any 1*8 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controversies. any need of an infallible guide ? If you fay, that the obfcure places of Scripture contain matters of Faith : I anfwer, that it is a matter of Faith to believe that the fenfe of them, whatfbever it is, which was intended by God is true ; for he that does not do fb calls Gods Truth into quefti- on. But to believe this or that to be the true fenfe of them, or, to believe the true fenfe of them, and to avoid the falfe, is not neceflary either to Faith or Salvation. For if God would have had his meaning in thefe places certainly known, how could it ftand with his wifdom, to be fb wanting to his own will and end, as to fpeak obfcurely ? or how can it confift with his Juftice, to re- quire of men to know certainly the meaning of thole words, which he himfelf hath not revealed ? Suppofe there were an abfblute Monarch, that in his own abfenfe from one of his Kingdoms, had written Laws for the Government of it, fbme very plainly, and fbme very ambiguoufly, and obfcurely, and his Su&je&s mould keep thofe that were plainly written with all exa&nefs, and for thofe that were obfcure, ufe their beft diligence to find his meaning in them, and obey them according to the fenfe of them which they conceived? mould this King either with juftice or wifdom be offended with thefe Subjects, if by reafon of the obfcunty of them, they miftook the fenfe of them, and fail of performance, by reafon of their Error? Il8. But, It is more ufeful & fit, you fay, for the decid- ing of Controverfies , to have befides an infallible Rule to go by> a living infallible Judge to determine them : & from hence you conclude , that certainly there is fuch a Judge, But why then may not another fay, that it is yet more ufe- ful for many excellent purpofes, that all the Patriarchs mould be infallible, than that the Pope only mould ? Another, that it would be yet more uleful, that all the Archbifhops of every Province mould be fo, than that the Patriarchs only mould be fb. Another, that it would be yet more ufeful, if all the Bilhops of every Diocefs were fb. Another, that it would be yet more available, that all the Parfbns of every Parim mould be fb. Ano- ther, Scrifture th* only Rule for Judging Qontrovtrfits, \ 3 ^ ther, that it would be yet more excellent, if all the Fathers of Families were fb. And laflly, another, that it were much more to be defired that every Man and every Wo- man were fo : juft as much as the prevention of Contro- versies, is better than the decifion of them, and the pre- vention of Herefies better than the condemnation of them ; and upon this ground conclude, by your own ve- ry confequence, That not only a general Council, nor only the Pope, but all the Patriarchs, Archbifhops, Biihops, Paftors, Fathers, nay all the men in the World are infalli- ble. If you (ay now, as I am fure you will, that this con- clufion is moft grofs, and abfurd againft fenfe and ex- perience, then muft alfo theground be falfe, from which it evidently and undeniably follows, im» that, That courie of dealing with men feems always more fit to Divine Pro- vidence, which feems mod fit to humane reafbn. 129. And fb likewife, That there mould men fucceed the Apoftles, which could mew themfelves to be their fuc- cefTors, by doing of Miracles, by fpeaking all kind of Lan- guages, by delivering men to Satan, as S. Paul did Hymen*- 7ts} and the inceftuous Corinthian, it is manifeft in human reafon it were incomparably more fit and ufeful for the decifion of Controversies, than that thefucceilbur of the Apoftles mould have none of thefe gifts, and for want of the figns of Apoftleihip, be juftly queftionable whether he be his fucceflor or no : and will you now conclude, That the Popes have the gift of doing Miracles, as well as the Apoftles had ? 1 $0. It were in all reafbn very ufeful and requifite, that the Pope mould, by the affiftance of Gods Spirit, be freed from the vices and paflions of men, left otherwife, the Authority given him for the good of the Church, he might imploy (as divers Popes you well know have done) to zht difturbance, and oppreffion and mifehief of it. And will you conclude from hence, That Popes are not fubject to the fins and paflions of other men ? That there never have been ambitious, covetous, luftful, tyrannous Popes. 1 3 1 . Who fees not that for mens dire&ion it were much more beneficial for the Church, that Infallibility mould T 2 be 140 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over fie s. be fetledin the Popes Perfbn, than in a general Council : That fb the means of deciding Controverfies might be fpeedy, eafie and perpetual, whereas that of general Coun- cils is not fb. And will you hence infer, that not the Church Repre tentative, but the Pope is indeed the infalli- ble Judge of Controverfies ? certainly if you mould, the Sorbon Do&ors would not think this a good conclufion. 1 32. It had been very commodious (one would think) that, feeing either Gods pleafure was the Scripture ihould be tranflated, or elfe in his Providence he knew it would be fb, that he had appointed fbme men for this bufineis, and by his Spirit affifted them in it, that lb we might have Translations as Authentical as the Original : yet you fee God did not think fit to do fb. 13:5. It had been very commodious (one would think) that the Scripture mould have been, at leaft for all things necellary, a Rule, plain and perfed: : And yet you fay, it is both imperfed and obfcure, even in things necelTary. 1 34. It had been moft requifite (one would think) that the Copies of the Bibles, mould have been preferved free from variety of Readings, which makes men very uncer- tain in many places, which is the Word of God, and which is the error or prefumption of man: and yet we fee God hath not thought fit lb to provide for us. 135. Who can conceive, but that an Apofrolick Inter- pretation of all the difficult places of Scripture, would have been ftrangely beneficial to the Church, efpecially there being fuch danger in miftaking thefenfe of them, as is by you pretended, and God in his providence forefeeing that the greateft part of Chnftians, would not accept of the Pope for the Judge of Controverfies ? And yet we fee God hath not fb ordered the matter. 156. Who doth not fee, that fuppofing the Bifhop of Rome , had been appointed Head of the Church, and Judge of Controverfies, that it would have been infinitely be- neficial to the Church, perhaps as much as all the reft of the Bible, that in fome Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received, this one Propolition had been fet down in Termsi The Bijlwps of Rome. fall be always Mo- narchs Scripture the only Rule forjudging Contr over fie s. 141 narchs of the Church, and they either alone, or with their ad- herents, the Guides of Faith, and tide Judges of Controverftes that fljall arife amongfi Chrift ians ? This, if you will deal ingenuoufly, you cannot but acknowledge ; for then all true Chriftians would have fubmitted to him, as willing- ly as to Chrift himfelf, neither needed you and your fel- lows, have troubled your (elf to invent (b many Sophifms for the proof of it. There would have been no more doubt of it among Chriftians, than there is of the Nativi- ty, Paflion, Refurre&ion or Afceniion of Chrift. You were beft now rub your forehead hard, and conclude upon us, that becaufe this would have been fo ufeful to have been done, therefore it is done.^ Or if you be (as I know you are) too ingenuous to fay ib, then muft you acknow- ledge, that the ground of your Argument, which is the very ground of all thefe absurdities, is mod abfurd ; and that it is our duty to be humbly thankful for thofe fuffici- ent, nay abundant means of Salvation, which God hath of his own goodneis granted us : and not conclude, he hath done that which he hath not done, becaule forfboth, m our vain judgments it leems convenient he fhouldhave done fb. 157. But you demand what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the Church, and exigence of Scripture, that the production of the one muft be the deftruclion of the other ? Out of which words lean frame no other argument for you than this. There is no Repugnance between the Scriptures ex- iftence, and the Churches infallibility, therefore the Church is infallible. Which coniequence will then be good, when you can fhew, that nothing can be untrue, but that only •which is impoffible ; that whatfoever may be done, that alfo is done. Which, if it were true, would conclude 'both you and me to be infallible, as well as either your Church, or Pope : in as much as there is no more repug- nance between the Scriptures exiftence and our infallibility, than there is between theirs. 138. Ob). But if Vroteftants will have the Scripture alone for their Judge, let them fir (I produce fome Scripture, affirm- ing, that by the entrance thereof \ infallibility went out of the Church, Anf. I a% Stripture the only Rule for Judging Contrsverjies. Anf. This Argument put in form runs thus. No Scri- pture affirms that by the entring thereof,infalhbility went out of the Church : Therefore there is an infallible Church, and therefore the Scripture alone is not Judge, that is, the Rule to judge by. But as no Scripture affirms that by the entring of it, Infallibility went out of the Church, fb nei- ther do we, neither have we any need to do fb. But we fay, that it continued in the Church even together with the Scriptures, ib long as Chnit and his Apoftles were living, and then departed : God in his providence having provided a plain and infallible Rule, to fupply the defeat of living and infallible Guides. I4T. But the Jewifl] Church retained Infallibility in her felf* and therefore it js unjuft to deprive the Church of Chrifi of it. Anf. That the Jews had fometimes an infallible mira- culous direction from God, m iome cafes of moment, he doth affirm and had good warrant : but that the Syna- gogue was abfolutely Infallible, he no where affirms, and therefore it is unjuftly and unworthily done of you to ob- trude ic upon him. And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived,, but only by fetling it in the High Prielr, and the company adhering and fubordi- nate unto him ? And whether the High Pneft was Infal- lible, when he believed not Chrift to be the Mejfiaj, but condemned and excommunicated them that fb profefled, and caufed him to be crucified for faying lb, I leave it to Chriftians to judge. But then fuppofe God had been io pleafed to do as he did not, to appoint the Synagouge an infallible guide : Could you by your -rules of Logick con- strain him, to appoint fuch a one to Chriftians alio, os fay unto him, that, in wifdom he could not dootherwife? Vain man that will be thus always tying God to your ima- ginations ! It is well for us that he leaves us not without di- rections to him, but if he will do this fbmetime by living Guides, fbmetime by written Rules, what is that to you ? may not he do what he will with his own ? 144. Ad §. 14. Neither is this Difcourfe (jf you mean your Conclufion^ that Tour Church u the infallible Judge its Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverts . 743 m Contr over fie s) confirmed by Jrenaus at all (Iren. l.;.c. 5 J For neither has henaus one fvllable to this purpofe, nei- ther can it be deduced out of what he fays, with any colour of confequence. For firft in faying, What if the Apojtles had not left Scripture, ought we not to have followed the Order of Tradition ? And in laying, Tloat to this Order many Nations yield affent, who believe in Chrift, having Sal- vation written in their hearts, by the Spirit of God, without Letters or Ink, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition : Doth he not plainly mew, that the Tradition he [peaks of, is nothing el(e, but the very fame that is written: nothing but to believe in Chrift ? To which, whether Scrip- ture alone to them that believe it, be not a fufficient guide, I leave it to you to judge. And are not his words jail as if a man mould fay, If God had not given us the light of the Sun, we mult have made u(e of Candles and Torches: If we had had no Eyes, we muft have felt out our way: If we had no Leggs, we muft have ufed Crutches, And doth not this in effed: 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 Leggs, we need not Crutches ? And by like reafbn, hen am in faying, If we had no Scripture, we mufb have followed Tradi- tion, and they that have none, do well to do fo, doth he not plainly import, that to them that have Scripture, and be- lieve it, Tradition is unnecellary ? which could not be, if the Scripture did not contain evidently the whole tradi- on. Which whether Irenaus believed or no, thefe words of his may inform you, Non enim per alios &c. we have re- ceived the diffofition of our Salvation from no others, but from them, by whom the Gofyel came unto us. Which Gofpel truly , the Apoftles fir ft preached, and afterwards by the will of God, delivered in writing to m, to be the Pillar and Foundation of our Faith. Upon which place BeUarmims two obfervati- n ons, and his acknowledgment enfuing upon them, are vlrf}?^ % very confiderable, and as I conceive, as home to my pur- 4- , , pofe as I would wiih them. His firft Notandum is, That m the Chrift tan Docirtn, fome thing? are fimply necejj'ary for the Salvation of all men \ of the knowledge of the Articles of the Apoflles 141- Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over fie s. ' Apoftles Creed ; and be fides the knowledge , of the ten Com- mandments, and fome of the Sacraments. Other things not fo neceft'ary, but that a man may be faved, without the explicit knowledge and belief \ and profejjion of them. His Second Note is, That thofe things which were fimply neufjary, the Apoftles were wont to preach to all men ; But of other things not ail to all, but fomething to all, to wit, thofe things which were profitable for all, other things only to Prelats and Pr lefts. Thefe things premifed, he acknowledged, That all thofe things were written by the Apo files, which are necefjary for all, and which they were wont openly to preach to all ; But that other things were not all written : And therefore, when YxQiixusfays that the Apoftles wrote what they Preach in the World, it is true, faith he, and not againfi Traditions, becaufe they preached not to the People all things, but only thofe things, which were necefjary or profitable for them. 14?. So that at the moft, you can infer from hence, but only a fuppofitive neceffity of having an infallible Guide,, and that grounded upon a falfe iuppofition, In cafe we had no Scripture, but an abfblute neceffity here- of, and to them who have and believe the Scripture, which is your afTiimption, cannot with any colour from hence be concluded, but rather the contrary. 146. Neither becaufe (as he (ays) it was then eofie to re- ceive the Truth from Gods Church, then, in the Age next af- ter the Apoftles, Then, when all the ancient and Apo- ftolick Churches were at an agreement about the Funda- mentals of Faith : Will it therefore follow that now, 1600 years after, when the ancient Churches are divided almoft into as many Religions as they are Churches, everyone being the Church to it felf, and heretical to all other, that it is as eafie, but extremely difficult or rather impoffible, to find the Church firft independently of the true Dodnn3 and then to find the truth by the Church. 148. Neither will the Apoftles depofitmg with the Church, all things belonging to truth, be any proof that the Church ihall certainly keep this depofitum, entire, and fincere, without adding to it, or taking from it ; for this whole de- pofitum was committed to every particular Church, nay, to every Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contyoverjtet. j J j every particular Man, which the Apoftles converted. And yet no man, I think, will fay, that there was any certainty, that it ftiould be kept whole and inviolate by every man, and every Church. It is apparent out of Scripture, it was committed to Timothy , and by him con- figned to other faithful men : and yet S. Paul thought ic not fuperfluous, earneftly to exhort him to the careful keeping of it : which exhortation you muft grant had been vain and fuperfluous, if the not keeping of it had been impoffible. And therefore though Irenasm fays. The Apoftles fully deposited in the Church all truth , yet he fays not, neither can we infer from what he lays, that the Church fhould always infallibly keep this depfnum^ enti re without the lo(s of any truth, and fincere with- out the mixture of any falmood. 149. Ad §. 2$. ] C. M. proceeds and tells us, That he- fide all this, the Doctrine of Proteftants is deftruclive of it felf For either they have certain and infallible means not to Err in interpreting ; or not. If not, Scripture to them can- not he afufficient ground for infallible Faith : If they have, and fo cannot Err in interpreting Scripture, then they are Me with infallibility to hear and determine all Controverfies of Faith ; and fo they may be, and are Judges of Controver- fies, although they ufe the Scripture as a Rule. And thus againft their own Doclrine, they conftitute another Judge of Controverfies bejides Scripture alone, C. H. And may not we with as much reafbn fubftitute Church and Papifts, inftead of Scripture and Proteftants, and fay unto you, Befides all this, the Do&rine of T 'a- pifts is deftru&ive of it felf. For either they have cer- tain and infallible means not to Err, in the choice of the Church, and interpreting her decrees, or they have not : If not, then the Church to them cannot be a fai:'- ficient (but meerly a phantaftical) ground for infallible Faith, nor a meet Judge of Controverfies: (Forunie/s £ be infallibly fiire that the Church is infallible, how can I be upon her Authority infallibly fure, that any thing fhe fays is infallible 1) If they have certain infallible means, and fb cannot Err in the choice of their Church, and in U in- 154 Scripture the enly Rule for Judging Controverfies. interpreting her decrees, then they are able with Infal- libility to hear, examine, and determine all Controver- iies of Faith, although they pretend to make the Church their Guide, And thus againft their own Do&rine, they conftitute another Judge of Controverfies, befides the Church alone. Nay every one makes himfelf a choofer of his own Religion, and of his own fenfe of the Churches decrees, which very thing in Vroteftants they fo highly con- demn : and (6 in judging others, condemn themfelves. 150. Neither in faying thus have I only cried quittance with you : but that you may fee how much you are in my debt, I will fhew unto you, that for your Sophifm a- gainft our way, I have given you a Demonftration againft yours. Firft, I fay, your Argument againft us, is a tran- iparent fallacy. The firft part of it lies thus : Prot eft ants have no means to interpret, without Error, obfcure and ambiguous places of Scripture ; therefore plain places of Scripture cannot be to them a fufficient ground of Faith. But though we pretend not to certain means of not Er- ring, in interpreting all Scripture, particularly fuch places as are obfcure and ambiguous, yet this methinks mould be no impediment but that we may have certainmeans of not Erring in and about the fcnle of thofe places, which are fo plain and clear that they need no Interpreters ; and in fuch we fay our Faith is contained. If you ask me how I can be fiire that I know the true meaning of thefe places ? I ask you again, can you be fure that you underftand what I, or any man elfe fays ? They that heard our Saviour and the Apoftles Preach, could they have fufficient aflurance, that they underftood at any time, what they would have them do ? if not, to what end did they hear them ? If they could, why may we not be as well afliired, that we underftand fufficiently, what we conceive plain in their writings ? 151. Again I pray tell us, whether ycu do certainly know the fenfe of thefe Scriptures, with which you pre- tend you are led to the knowledg of your Church ? if you do not, how know you that there is any Church Infallible, and that thefe are the Notes of it, and that, this Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. I J f this is the Church that hath thefe Notes ? If you do, then give us leave to have the fame means, and the fame abi- lities to know other plain places , which you have to know theie. For if all Scripture; be obfcure, how come you to know the fenfe of thefe places ? If fome places of it be plain, why mould we fray here ? 152. And now, to come to the other part of your di- lemma; in faying, If they have certain means , and fo can- not Err, methinks you forget your felf very much, and feem to make no difference , between, having certain means to do a thing, and the a&ual doing of it. As if you mould conclude, becaufe all men have certain means of Salvation, therefore all men certainly muft be faved, and cannot do otherwife ; as if whofoever had a Horie muft prefently get up and Ride ; Whofoever had means to find out a wav, could not negled: thofe means and fb miftake it, God be thanked, that we have fuffici- ent means to be certain enough of the truth of our Faith. But the Priviledge of not being in poflibility of Erring, that we challenge not, becaufe we have as little reafbn as you to do fb : and you" have none at all. If you ask, fee- ing we may poflibly Err, how can we be allured we do not ? I ask you again, feeing your Eye-fight may deceive you, how can you be fore you fee the Sun, when you do fee it? Perhaps you may be in a dream, and perhaps you, and all the men in the World have been fb, when they thought they were awake, and then only awake, when they thought they Dreamt. But this I am fine of, as fare as that God is good,that he will require no impoffi- bilities of us : not an Infallible, nor a certainly— uner- ring belief, unlefs he hath given us certain means to a- void Error; and if we ufe thole which wc have, will never require of us, that we ufe that which we have not. 15;. Now from this miftaken ground, that it is all one to have means of avoiding Error, and to be in no danger nor poflibility of Error; You infer upon us as an abfurd concluiion, That -we make cur (elves able to deter- mine Controverjies of Faith with Infallibility, and Judges of Controverfies. For the latter part of this inference, we a> U 2 knowledge I $6 Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. knowledge and embrace it. We do make our felves Judges of Controverfies : that is, we do makeufe of our own under- ftanding in the choice of our Religion. Butthis, if it be a crime, is common to us with you, (as I have proved above) and the difference is, not that we are choofers, and you not choofers, but that we, as we conceive, choofe wifely, but you being wilfully blind choofe to follow thofe that are fb too»; not remembring what our Saviour hath told you, when the Blind lead the Blind, both {hall fall into the Ditch. But then again I mull tell you, you have done ill to confound together, Judges, and infallible Judges; unlefsyou will fay, either that we have no Judges in our Courts of Civil judicature, or that they are all Infallible. " 1 54. Thus have we caft offyour dilemma, and broken both the Horns of it. But now my retortion lies heavy upon you,and will not be turned off For firft you content not your felves with a moral certainty of the things you believe, nor with fuch a degree of aflurance of them, as is fufficient to produce obedience to the condition of the new Covenant, which is all that we require. Gods Spi- rit, if he pleafe, may Work more, and certainty of ad- herence beyond a certainty of evidence. But neither God doth, nor man may require of us, as our Duty, to give a greater aflent to the conclufion than the premifes deferve ; to build an infallible Faith upon Motives that are only highly credible, and not infallible, as it were a great and heavy building upon a Foundation that hath not flrength proportionable. But though God require not of us fuch unreafbnable things, You do, and tell men they cannot be faved, unlefs they believe your Pro- posals with an infallible Faith. To which end they muft believe alfb your Propounder, your Church, to be fimply Infallible. Now how is it poffible for them to give a rational aflent to the Churches infallibility, unlefs they have fome infallible means to know that me is infallible? Neither can they infallibly know the infallibility of this means, but by fome other, and fo on for ever : unlefs they can dig fo deep as to come at length to the Rock, that is, to fettle all upon fomething evident of it felf which Scripture the only Rule for Judging Cont r over fie s. 1 ?7 is not (b much as pretended. But the laft refblution of all is into Motives, which indeed upon examination will fearce appear probable, but are not fb much as avouch- ed to be any more than very credible. For example, if I ask you why you do believe Tranfubftantiation? What can you anfwer, but becaufe it is a Revelation of the prime Verity. I demand again, how can you affureyour felfor me of that, being ready to embrace it if it may appear to be fb ? And what can you fay, but that you know it to b". fb, becaufe the Church fays fb, which is Infallible. If I ask, what mean You by your Church ? You can tell me nothing, but the Company of Chnfti- ans which adhere to the Tope. I demand then laftly ; Why mould I believe this Company to be the Infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation? And then you tell me, that there are many Motives to induce a Man to this belief. But are thefe Motives laftly infallible? No fay you, but very credible. Well, let them pafs for fuch, becaufe now we have not leifure to examine them. Yet methinks feeing the Motives to believe the Churches in- fallibility, are only very credible, it mould alio be but as credible that your Church is Infallible., and as credible, and no more, perhaps fbmewhat lefs, that her Propofals, particularly Tranfubftantiation, are Divine Revelations. And methinks You mould require only a Moral, and Modeft aflent to them, and not a Divine as you call it, and Infallible Faith. But then of thefe Motives to the Churches Infallibility, I hope you will give us leave to confider, and judge whether they be indeed Motives, and fufficient ; or whether they be not Motiues at all, or not fufficient ; or whether thefe Motives or Inducements to your Church be not impeached, and oppofed with Com- puliives, and enforcements, from it ; or laftly, whether thefe Motives which You ufe, be not indeed only Mo- tives to Chriftianity, and not to Popery : give me leave for diftin&ion fake to call your Religion fb. If we may not judge of thefe things, how can my judgment be mo- ved with that which comes not within its cognizance ? If I may, then at leaft I am to be a Judge of all thele Con- Scripture jhe only Rule for Judging Controverfies. Controverfies. i. Whether every one of thefe Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church ? a. If to fbme, whe- ther to Yours? 3. If to Yours, whether fufficient, orin- fufficient? 4. Whether other Societies have not as many, and as great Motives to draw me to them ? J. Whether I have not greater reafbn to believe you do Err, than that you cannot? And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Queftions. Am I a fufficient Judge of thefe Controversies, or no? If of thefe, why mall I flay here, why not of others ? Why not of all ? Nay doth not the true examining of thefe few, contain and lay upon me the examination of all ? What other Mo- tives to your Church have you, but your Notes of it ? Bdlarmine gives fbme 14. or 15. And one of thefe fif- teen contains in it the examination of all Controverfies, and not only fb, but of all uncontroverted Doctrines. For how mail I,or can I know the Church ofRomes confor- mity with the Ancient Church, unlefs I know firft what the Ancient Church did hold, and then what the Church of Rome doth hold- and laftly, whether they be conform- able, or if in my judgment they feem not conformable, I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church, for want of the Note which fhe pretends is pro- per, and perpetual to it. So that for ought I can fee, Judges we are and muft be of all fides, every one for him (elf, and God for us all. 155. §, a6 ] C. M. 1 ask, whether this AjJ'ertion (Scrip- ture alone is Judge of all Controverfies in Faith ) be a Fun- damental point of Faith or no ? CHIL. I anfvver; This aflertion, that Scripture alone is Judge of all Controverfies in Faith, if it be taken proper- ly, is neither a Fundamental nor Unfundamental point of Faith, nor' no point of Faith at all, but a plain falf hood. It is not a Judge of Controverfies but a Rule to Judge them by ; and that not an abfblutely perfect Rule, but as perfect as a written Rule can be ; which muft al- ways need fomething elfe, which is either evidently true, or evidently credible to give atteftation to it, and that in this, cafe is Univerfal Tradition. So that Univerfal Tra- • , dition Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. 159 dition is the Rule to judge all Controverfies by. But then becaufe nothing befides Scripture, comes to us with as full a ftream of Tradition as Scripture, Scripture alone, and no unwritten Do&rine, nor no Infallibility of any Church, having atteflation from Tradition truly Univer- sal ; for this r-eafon we conceive, as the Apoftles perfbns while they were living were the only Judges of Con- troverfies, fb their Writings, now they are dead, are the only Rule for us to judge them by : There being nothing unwritten, which can go in upon half fb fair Cards, for the Title of Apoftolick Tradition, as thefe things which by the confeffion of both Sides are not fb : I mean the Dotlrine of the Millinaries> and of the necejfity of the Eu- cbariltfor Infants. 156. Yet when we fay, the Scripture is the only Rule to Judge all Controverfies by, methinks you ihoukl eafily conceive, that we would be underftood of all thofe that are poflible to be Judged by Scripture, and of thofe that anfe among fuch as believe the Scripture. For if I had a Controveriie with an Atheift whether there were a God or no, I would not fay, that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by : feeing that doubting whether there be a God or no, he mult needs doubt whether the Scripture be the Word of God : or if he does not, he grants the Quefhon, and is not the man we fpeak of. So likewife, if I had a Controverfie about the Truth of Chrift with a Jew, it would be vainly done of me, ihould I prefs him with the Authority of the New Teftament which he be- lieves not, until out of fbme Principles common to us both, I had perfuaded him that it is the Word of God. The New Jefiament therefore while he remains a Jew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controverfie ; In as much as that which is doubted of it felf, is not fit to determine other doubts. So likewife if there were any that believed Chriflian 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 impoflible fup- pofition, for I may believe a Book of S. Aufttnes, to con- tain nothing but the Truth of God, and yet not to have been I.6o Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. been infpired by God himfelf,) againft fuch men there* fore there were no difputing out of the Bible ; becaufe nothing in queflion can be a proof to it felf. When therefore we (ay the Scripture is a fufficient means to de- termine all Controverfies, we fay not this, either to Athe- ifisy Jews, Turks, or fuch Chriftians (if there beany fuch) as believe not Scripture to be the Word of God. But among fuch men only, as are already agreed upon this. That the Scripture is the Word of God, we (ay all Con- troverfies that arife about Faith, are either not at all de- cidable and confequently not neceflary to be believed one way or other, or they may be determined by Scri- pture. In a Word, That all things neceflary to be believed are evidently contained in Scripture, and what is not there evidently contained, cannot be neceflary to be believed. And our reafon hereof is convincing; becaufe nothing can Challenge our belief, but what hath defcended to us from Chrift by Original and Univerfal Tradition : Now nothing but Scripture hath thus defcended to us, There- fore nothing but Scripture can Challenge our belief Now then to come up clofer to you, and to anfwer to your Queflion, not as you put it, but as you mould have put it : I fay, That this4 pofltion, Scripture alone is the Rule whereby they which believe it to be Gods Word are to judge all Contr over fie s in Faith, is no fundamental point. Though not for your Reafbns : For your firft and ftrongeft reafon you fee is plainly voided and cut off by my dating of the Queftion as I have done, and f uppofing in it that the par- ties at variance are agreed about this,That the Scripture is the Word of God ; and confequently that this is none of their Controverfies. To your fecond, That Contr over fie s cannot be ended without fome living Authority, We have (aid already, that neceflary Controverfies may be and are de- cided. And if they be not ended, this is not through de- fed of the Rule, but through the default of Men. And for thfefe that cannot thus be ended, it is not neceflary they mould be ended. For if God did require the ending of them, he would have provided fbme certain means for the ending of them. And to your Third, I fay, that your Scripture the only Rule for Judging Cotttroverjte;. i££ your pretence of ufing thefe means is but hypocrital : for you ufe them with prejudice, and with a fetled refolution not to believe any thing which thefe means happily may fuggeft into you, if it any way crofs your pre- conceived periwafion of your Churches infallibility. You give not your (elves liberty of judgment in the ufe of them, nor fiiffer your felves to be led by them to the Truth, to which they would lead you, would you but be as willing to be- lieve this confequence, Our Church doth oppofe Scripture, therefore it doth err, therefore it is not Infallible, as you are refolute to believe this, The Church is Infallible, there- fore it doth not err, and therefore it doth not oppofe Scri- pture, though it feem to do fb never fb plainly. i f 7. You pray, but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion, but that he would confirm you in your own. You confer places, but it is that you may confirm, or colour over with plaufible difguifes your er- roneous do&rine, not that you may judge of them and forfake them if there be reafbn for it. You confult the Originals, but you regard them not when they make againft your Do&rin or Tranf lation. 159. Notwithftanding,though not forthefereafbns,yet for others, I conceive this Do&rin not Fundamental : Bc- caufe if a man mould believe Chriftian Religion wholly, and entirely, and live according to it, luch a man, though he mould not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith, no nor to be the Word of God, my opini- on is he may be laved; and my reafon is, becaufe he per- forms the entire condition of the new Covenant, which is, that we believe the matter of the Gofpel, and not that it is contained in thefe or thefe Books. So that the Books of Scripture are not fb much the objects of our Faith, as the inftruments of conveying it to our underftanding ; and not fo much of the being of the Chriftian Dodrin, as re- quisite to the well-being of it. Iranetts tells us (as M. K. acknowledged^) of fbme barbarous Nations, that belie-vtd the Doclrm of Chrift , and jet believed not the Scripture to be the Word of God3 for they never heard of it3 and Faith comes by hearing : But thefe barbarous people might be lived : X there- t6l Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. therefore men might be faved without believing the Scri- pture to be the Word of God ; much more without belie- ving it to be a Rule,, and a perfed Rule of Faith. Neither doubt I, but if the Books of Scripture had been propofed to them by the other parts of the Church, where they had been before received, and had been doubted of, or even rejected by thofe barbarous Nations, but ftill by the bare belief and pra&iceofChriftianity, they might be faved: God requiring, 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. Not but that it were now very ftrange and unreafbnable, if a man mould believe the matter of thefe Books, and not the Authority of the Books: and therefore if a man mould profefs the not believing of thefe, I mould have reafon to fear he did not believe that. But there is not always an equal neceffity for the belief of thofe things, for the be- lief whereof there is an equal reaibn. We have I believe as great reafon to believe there was fuch a man as Henry they III King of England, as t&jaJtjefus Chrifi fuffered un- der Pontius Pilate: yet this is neceflary to be believed, and that is not fb. So that if any man fhould doubt of or diC believe that, it were moft unreafbnably done of him, yet it were no mortal fin, nor no fin at all : God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to be- lieve all which reafon induceth them to believe. There- fore as an Executor, that mould perform the whole Will of the dead, mould fully fatisfie the Law, though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will, which in- deed is fo : So I believe, that he who believes all the par- ticular do&nnes which integrate Chriftianity, and lives according to them, mould be faved, though he neither believed nor knew that the Goipels were written by the Evangelifts, or the Epiftles by the Apoftles. 1 60. This difcourfe whether it be rational and conclu- ding or no, I fubmit to better judgment ; But (lire I am, that the corollary which you draw from this pofition, that thts pint is not Fundamental, is very inconfequent; that is, that we are uncertain of the truth of it, becauie we fay the whole Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. \ i \ whole Church, much more particular Churches and pri- vate men may err in points not Fundamental. A pretty Sophifm, depending upon this Principle, that whofbever poflibly may err, he cannot be certain that he doth not err. And upon this ground, what fhall hinder me from concluding, that feeing you alfb hold, that neither parti- cular Churches, nor private men are Infallible even in Fundamentals, that even the Fundamentals of Chnftiam- ty, remain to you uncertain ? A Judge may poflibly err in judgment, can he therefore never have aflu ranee that he hath judged right ? A Traveller may poflibly miftake his way, muft 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 foberand in his wits, that he is in the way to London ? Thefe you fee are right worthy confequences., and yet they are as like your own, as an Egg to an Eg?, or Milk to Milk. 1 6;. Ad §.2 7.] C. M. S. Auftin plainly affirms that to cppofe the Churches definitions is to refifi God himfelf(fpeakin^ of the Contr over fie of Rebaptiz,ation de Unit. Eccl. cap. iz?) where he faith that Chrifi bears witnefi to his Church 3 and whofoever refufeth to follow the practice of the Church, doth refifi our Saviour himfelf 7vho by his tefiimony recommends the Church, &c. CHIL. I Anfwer, Firft that in many things you will not be tried by S. Augufimes judgment, nor fubmit to his au- thority ; not concerning Appeals to Rome, not concerning Tranfiibftantiation, not touching the ufe and woi fhiping of Images, not concerning the State of Saints fouls before the day of judgment, not touching the Virgin Maries free- dom from adual and original fin, not touching the ne- ceflity of the Eucharift for Infants, not touching the damning Infants to Hell that die without Baptifm, not touching the knowledge of Saints departed, not touching Purgatory, not touching the fallibility of Councils, even general Councils, not touching perfection and perfpicui- ty of Scripture in matters neceilary to Salvation, not touch- ing Auricular Confeflion, not touching the half Commu- X 2 nion l64 Scrifture the only Rule for Judging Ccntroverfies. nion, not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue ; In thefe things,, I fay, you will not ftand to S. Aufiines judg- ment, and therefore can with no reafon or equity require us to do fb in this matter. 2. To S.Augufiine in heat of deputation againft the Donatifts, and raniacking all places for arguments againft them, we oppofe S. Aufiwe out of this heat, delivering the do&rineof Chriftianity calmly, and moderately ; where he fays. In us qua aperte pofitafunt in facrts Scripture, omnia ea reperiuntur qua continent fidem, morefque but for a credible witnefi of Ancient Tradition. Whofbever therefore refufeth to follow the pra&ice of the Church (underftand of all pla- ces and ages) though he be thought to refill our Saviour, what is that to us, who caftoffno pra&iecs of the Church, but fuch as are evidently poft-nate to the time of the Apo- ftles,and plainly contrary to the practice of former and purer times. Laftly it is evident, and even to impudence it felf undeniable, that upon this ground, of believing all things taught by the prefent Church as taught by Chrift, Error was held, for example, the neceffity of the Eucha- rift for Infants, and that in S. Aufiines time, and that by S. Auftine himfelf : and therefore without controverfie this is no certain ground for truth, which may fupport falfhood as well as truth. 164. To the Argument wherewith you concluded An- iwer, That though the vifible Church mall always with- out fail propofe fb much of Gods revelation, as is fuffici- ent to bring men to Heaven, for otherwife it will not be the vifible Church, yet it may fometimes add to this reve- lation things fuperfluous, nay hurtful, nay in themfelves damnable, though not unpardonable ; and fometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable, and therefore it Scripture the only Rule for Judging Contr over pes, i £ j it is poflible, without fin, to refift in Ibme things the Vi- fible Church ofChrift. But youprefsus farther, and de- mand, -what Vifible Church was extant , when Luther began, •whether it were the Roman or Proteftant Church ? As if it muft of neceffity either be Proteftant or Roman , or Roman of neceffity, if it were not Proteftant! yet this is the moil: ufual fallacy of all your difputers, by fbme fpecious Argu- ments to perfwade weak men that the Church oiProteftants cannot be the true Church ; and thence to infer, that without doubt it muft be the Roman. But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it, and the Grecian another ? And if one muft be the whole, why not the Greek Church, as well as the Roman ? there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own; unlefsit be, that fhe is poor, and opprefled by the Turk, and you are in glory and fplendor. CHAP. III. The ANSWER to the Third CHAPTER. Wherein it is maintained, That the diftinBion of points Funda- mental and not Fundamental, ts in this prefent Controver- fie good and pertinent : And that the Catholick Church may err in the latter kind of the [aid points. I. '"TpHis diftin&ion is imployed by Proteftants to many JL purpofes, and therefore if it be pertinent and good, (as they underftand and apply it) the whole Edifice built thereon, muft be either firm and ftable, or if it be not, it cannot be for any default in this diftin&ion. 2. If you object to them difcords in matter of faith without any means of agreement, They will anfwer you, that they want not good and (olid means of agreement in matters neceffary to falvation, viz,. Their belief of all thofe things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture; which who Co believes, muft of neceffity believe all things neceffary to falvation; and their mutual fufTenng one another, 1 66 Scripture the only Ride for Judging Controverfies. another, to abound in their feveral fenfe, in matters not plainly aud undoubtedly there delivered. And for their agreement in all Controverfies of Religion, either they have means to agree about them, or not : If you fay they have, why did you before deny it ? If they have not means, why do you find fault with them, for not agreeing? ;. You will fay, that their fault is, that by remaining Pi oteftants they exclude themfelves from the means of agree- ment> which you have, and which by fubmiffion to your Church they might have alfo. But if you have means of agreement, the more fliame for you that you ftill difagre-. For who, I pray, is more inexcufably guilty, for the omil- iion of any duty ; they that either have no means to do it, or elie know of none they have, which puts them in the fame cafe as if they had none : or they which profefs to have an eafie and expedite means to do it, and yet ftill leave it undone ? If yon had been blind (faith our Saviour to the Pharifees) you had had no fin, but now you fay you fee, therefore your fin remaineth, 4. If you fay, you do agree in matters of Faith, I fay this is ridiculous : for you define matters of Faith to be thofe wherein you agree. So that to fay, you agree in matters of Faith, is to fay, you agree in thofe things wherein you do agree. And do not Protefiants do ib like wife ? Do not they agree in thofe things, wherein they do agree? 5. But you are all agreed that only thofe things whet ein you do agree are matters of Faith. And Trotefiants if they were wife, would do fo too. Sure I am they have reafbn enough to do fb : feeing all of them agree with explicite Faith in all thofe things, which are plainly and undoubtedly deli- vered in Scripture, that is, in all which God hath plainly revealed : and with an implicite Faith, in that fenfe of the whole Scripture which God intended whatfbever it was. Secondly, That which you pretend is falfe ; for elfe , why do lome of you hold it againft Faith, to take or allow the Oath of Allegiance, others as learned and honeft as they, that it is againft Faith and unlawful to refute it and allow the refilling of it ? Whydofbme of you hold, that kis^ Fule, that the Pope is Head of the Church by divine Law, Scripture the only Rule forjudging Controverfies. 167 Law, others the contrary ? Some hold it de Fide, that the Blefled Virgin was free from Adual fin, others that it is not fb. Some, that the Popes indirect power over Princes in temporalties is de Fide , Others the contrary. Some, that it is Univerfal Tradition, and confequently de Fide, that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original fin, others the contrary. 6. Bat what fhall we fay now, if you be not agreed touching your pretended means of agreement, how then can you pretend to Unity either A&ual or Potential more than Protectants may ? Some of you fay, the Pope alone without a Council may determine all Controverfies : But others deny it. Some, that a General Council without a Pope may do fb : Others deny this. Some, Both in conjun&ion are infallible determiners ; Others again de- ny this. Laftly, fbme among you, hold the Acceptation of the decrees of Councils by the Univerfal. Church to be the only way to decide Controverfies : which others denv, by denying the Church to be Infallible. And in- deed what wav of ending Cotroverfies 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 ? 7. Again, Means of agreeing differences are either Rational and well grounded and of Gods appointment, or voluntary and taken up at the pleafure of men. Means of the former nature, we fay, you have as little as we. For where hath God appointed, that the Pope, or a Coun- cil, or a:Council confirmed by the Pope, or that Society of Chnftians which adhere to him, fhall be the Infallible Judge of Controverfies . I defire you to fhew any one of thefe Affertions plainly fet down in Scripture, (as in all Reafbn a thing of this nature mould be) or at leaft de- livered with a full confent of Fathers, or at leaft taught in plain terms by any one Father for four Hundred years after Chrtft. And if you cannot do this (as I am Hire you cannot) and yet will flill be obtruding your felves upon us for our Judges, who will not cry out, --perijfe front em de rebus ? that you have loft all modefty ? 8. But Scripture the only Rule for Judging Controverfies. 8. But then for means of the other kind, fuch as yours are, we have great abundance of them. For befides all the ways which you have deviled, which we may make ufe of when we pleaie,we have a great many more, which you yet have never thought of, for which we have as good colour out of Scripture as you have for yours. For hrft, we could if we would, try it by Lots, whole Do- ctrine is true, and whole falfe. And you know it is aProv. 16.33. Wl'itten> a The Lot is c aft into the Lap, but the 'whole dijpo- fition of it is from the Lord, 2. We could refer them to kProv. 16. 10. the King, and you know it is written: t> A Divine fen- fence is in the Lips of the King, his mouth tranfgrejj'eth not in c Prov. 21. r. judgment. c The Heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord. We could refer the matter to any aflembly of Chrifrians allembled in the name of Chrift, feeing it is d Mat. 18. 20. written, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midft of them. We may refer it to any cMat. 2.7. prleft, becaufe it is written, c The Priefts Lips Jhall pre- fMat. 25. 2. ferve knowledge. f The Scribes and Pharifees Jit in Moles Chair, &c. To any Preacher of the Goipel, to any Pa- llor, or Doctor, for to every one of them Chrift hath s Mat. 28. 20. promifed g he will he with them alwaies even to the end of h Luk. 10. 16. the World : and of every one of them it is laid, h He that heareth you heareth me, &c. To any Bifhop or Prelate, iHeb. 13. 17. for it is written, x Obey your Prelates, and again k he * Eph- 4- 1 1 • hath given Paftors and Doclors, &c. left we Jhould be car- ried about with every wind of Doclri'ne. To any particular Church of Chriftians, leeing it is a particular Church 1 1 Tim. 3. 15. which is called ' The Houfe of God, a Pillar and ground of Truth : and feeing of any particular Church it is written ,m Mat. 18. 17. B1 He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publican. We might refer it to any man n Mat. 7. 8. that prays for Gods Spirit, for it is written, n Every one «Jam. 1. 5. that asketh receiveth : and again, ° If any man ivant Wif- dom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. Laftly, we might refer it to the Jews, flfai. 59. 21. for without all doubt of them it is written, p my Spirit that is in thee , &c. All thefe means of agreement, where- of not any one but hath as much probability from Scri- pt ure j into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 169 pture, as that which you obtrude upon us, offer the in- felves upon a fudden to me : happily many more might be thought on., if we had time, but thefe arc enough to mew, that would we make ufe of voluntary and deviled means to determine differences, we had them in great abundance. And if you fay thefe would fail" us, and contradict themfelves; fb, as we pretend, have yours. There have been Popes againft Popes : Councils agamlt Councils : Councils confirmed by Popes, againft Coun- cils confirmed by Popes : Laftly, the Church of fome Ages againft the Church of other Ages. 9. Laftly, whereas you find fault, That Proteftants up- braided with their dif cordis, an fiver that they differ only in pints not Fundamental, I defire you tell me whether they do fb, or do not (b ; If they do fo, I hope you will not find fault with the An fiver : If you fay they do not fb, but in points Fundamental alio ; then they are not mem- bers of the fame Church one with another , no more than with you : And therefore why fhould you object to any of them, their differences from each other, any more than to your felves, their more and greater differences from you ? 10. But they are convinced fometime even by their own confeffions, that the Ancient Fathers taught divers points of Popery : and then they reply, thofe Fathers may neverthelefs be faved, becaufe thofe Errors were not Fundamental. And may not you alfb be convinced by the confeffions of your own men, that the Fathers taught divers points held by Proteftants againft the Church of Rome, and divers againft Proteftants and the Church of Rome ? Do not your Purg- ing Indexes, clip the Tongues, and feal up the Lips of a great many for fuch confeffions ? And is not the above cited confeffion of your Doway Divines, plain and full to the fame purpofe ? And do not you alio, as freely as we, charge the Fathers with Errors, and yet fay they were faved ? Now what elfe do we underftand by an unfundamental Error, but fuch a one with which a man may poflibly be faved ? So that frill you proceed in con- demning others for your own faults, and urging argil- Y ments 1 70 Points rightly diftinguijhed ments againft us, which return more ftrongly upon your felves. II. But your will is, we Jhould remember that Chrift muft alwaies have a the Franciscans and Dominicans difagree about things equally into Fundamental and not Fundamental. I «* t equally revealed by Almighty God : and feeing they do fo, Ibefeech you let meunderltand, why this realon will not exclude them as well as Proteftants from all faith and unity therein ? Thus you have failed of your undertaking in your firft part or your Title, and that is a very ill omen, efpecially in points offbftreight mutual dependance, that we mall have but llender performance in your fe^ond affumpt. Which is, That the Church is Infallible in all her Definitions , whether concerning pints Fundamental, or not Fundamental. i<5. Ad*$. 9. 10, 1 1. I grant that the Church cannot with- out damnable fin, either deny any thing to be true, which jhe knows to be Gods truth : or propofe any thing as his truth, which flie knows not to befo. But that fho may not do this by ignorance or miftake, and fo without damnable fin, that" you fhould have proved, but have not. But, fay you this excufe cannot ferve : for if the Church be affiled only for points fundamental, flie cannot but know that jhe may err in points not fundamental. An(. It does not follow, unlefs you iuppofe, that the Church knows thatfhe is ailifted no far- ther. But if, being ailifted only fo far, me yet did con- ceive by error her affiftance abfolute and unlimited, or if knowing her affiftance reftrained to fundamentals, ihe yet conceived by error, that fhe fhould be guarded, from propofing any thing but what was fundamental, then the confequence is apparently falfe. But at leaf foe cannot be certain that foe cannot err, and therefore cannot be excufed from headlong and pernicious temerity in propofing points not funda- mental, to be believed by Chriftians as matters of Faith. Alii.' Neither is this deftru&ion worth any thing ; unlefs it be underflood of fuch fundamental points, as me is not war- ranted to propofe by evident Text of Scripture. Indeed if me propofe fuch, as matters of Faith certainly true, fhe may well be queftioned, Quo Warranto? She builds with- out a foundation, and fays thus faith the Lord, whtn the Lord doth not fay fo: which cannot be excufed from rafh- nefs and high preemption ; fuch a pre mm prion, as an Embaflador mould commit, whoihoukMay in his Makers name that for which he hath no commiffion. Of the lame Z z nature^ 1^2 Points rightly diftinguifred nature, I fay, but of a higher ftrain : as much as the King of Heaven, is greater than any earthly King. But though fhe may err in fbme points not fundamental, yet may me have certainty enough in propofing others; as for ex- ample, thefe, That Abraham begat Ifaac, that S. Paul had a Cloak, that Timothy wasfick ; becaufe thefe, though not fundamental, /. e. no eiiential parts of Chnftianity, yet are evidently, and undeniably fet down in Scripture, and confequently, may be without all rafhnefs propofed by the Church as certain divine Revelations. Neitherisyour Argument concluding when you fay, If in fuch things fie may be deceived, foe mufi be always uncertain of all fucb things. For my fenfe may fbmetimes poffibly deceive me, yet I am certain enough that I fee what I fee, and feel what I feel. Our Judges are not infallible in their judg- ments, yet are they certain enough, that they judge aright, and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given, when they condemn a Thief, or a Murderer to the Gallows. A Traveller is not always certain of his way, but often miftaken ; and does it therefore follow that he can have no aflurance that Charing-Crofs is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall ? The ground of your error here, is your not diftinguiming, between adual certainty and abfblute infallibility. Geometricians are not infalli- ble in their own Science : yet they are very certain of thofe things, which they fee demonftrated. And Carpenters are not infallible, yet certain of the ftraightnefs of thofe things which agree with their Rule and Square. So though the Church be not infallibly certain, that in all her defini- tions, whereof fbme are about difputable and ambiguous matters, fhe fhall proceed according to her Rule, yet be- ' ing certain of the infallibility of her Rule, and that in this or chat thing ilie doth manifeftly proceed according to it, [he may be certain of the Truth of fome particular De- crees, and yet not certain that irie fhall never decree but what is true. 2.7. Ad £. 12. Ob). But if the Church may err in points not fundamental, fhe may err in propofing Scripture, and Jo we cannot be ajjured 7vhether Jhe have not been deceived already. Anf. into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 175 'Anf. The Church may err in her proportion or cuirody of the Canon of Scripture , if you underftand by the Church, any prefent Church of one denomination, for example, the Roman, the Greek, or fb. Yet have we fuffi- cient certainty of Scripture, not from the bare tefti- mony of any prelent Church, but from Univerfal Tra- dition, of which the teftimony of any prefent Church is but a little part. So that here you fall into the Fallacy, d diBo fecundum quid ad diBum (implicit tr. For in effect this is the fenfe of your Argument: Unlefs the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty of Scripture from the authority of the Church : Therefore unlefs the Church be infallible, we can have no certainty hereof at all. . As if a man ihould fay; If the Vintage of France milcarry, we can have no Wine from France : Therefore if that Vintage mifcarry we can have no Wine at all. And for the iri- corruption of Scripture^ I know no other rational aflii- rance we can have of it, than fiich as we have of the in- corruption of other ancient Books, that is, the confent cf ancient Copies : fuch 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 other ailurance hereof, this is not rational and difcurfive, but fupernatural and infufed. An ailu- rance it may be to himfelf, but no argument to another. As for the Infallibility of the Church, it is fb far from be- ing a proof of the Scriptures incorruption, that- no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of Scripture : which yet are as fubject to corruption as any other, and more likely to have been corrupted (if it had been poffi- ble) than any other, and made to fpeak as they do, for the advantage of thofe men, whofe ambition it hath been a long time, to bring all under their authority. Now then, if any man ihould prove the Scriptures uncorrupt- ed, becaufe the Church fays fb which is infallible : I would demand again touching this very thing, that there is an infallible Church, feeing it is not of it felf evident, how fliall I be allured of it r And what can he anfwer, but that the Scripture fays fb in thefe and thefe places ? Hei eupon 1 would ask him, how fhall I be affined, that the Scriptures are 1*74 Points rightly difiinguijlied are incorrupted in thofe places ? feeing it is poffible, and not altogether improbable, that thefe men, which defire to be thought infallible, when they had the government of all things in their own hands, may have altered them for their purpofe. If to this he anlvver again, that the Church is infallible, and therefore cannot do fb. I hope it would be apparent, that he runs round in a circle, and proves the Scriptures incorruption, by the Churches infallibility, and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorrupti- on, and that is in effect the Churches infallibility, by the Churches infallibility, and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption. 28. Now for yoar obfervation, that /ewe Books, which were not always known to be Canonical 3 have been afterwards received for fuch. But never any book or fyttable defined for Canonical \was afterwards ejuefiionedor rcjecled for Aftcryfhal: I demand, touching the firft fort, whether they were com- mended to the Church by the Apoftles as Canonical or not? If not, feeing the whole Faith was preached by the Apoftles to the Church, and feeing after the Apoftles, the Church pretends to no new Revelations, how can it be an Article of Faith to believe them Canonical ? And how can you pretend, that your Church which makes this an Article of Faith, is fb afliftedas not to propofe any thing as a divine Truth which is not revealed by God ? if they were, how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the Canon of Scripture, which hath fuffered fome Books of Canonical Scripture, to be loft ? and others to lofe for a long time their being Canonical, at leaft, the neceflity of being fb efteemed, and afterwards, as it were by the law of Pcftliminium hath reftored their Authority and Canonicalnefs unto them ? If this was delivered by the Apoftles to the Church, the point was fufficiently difcul- fed, and therefore your Churches omiffion to teach it for i bme ages, as an article of faith, nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith, and putting it among diluta- ble problems, was furely not very laudable. Ir it were not revealed by God to the Apoftles, and by the Apoftles ro the Church, then can it be no Revelation, and there- fore into Fundamental and not Fundamental. jyr fore her pre fum prion in propofing it as fuch, is inex- cufable. 29. And then for the other part of it, that never any hook or fyllable defined for Canonical 3 was afterwards quefli- onedor rejected for Apocryphal : Certainly it is a bold allsve- racion, but extreamly ial(e. For I demand; The Book of Ecclefiafticas and JVifdom, the Epifile of S.James, and to the Hebrews, were they by theApottles approved for Canoni- cal, or no ? If not, with what face dare you approve them, and yet pretend that all your doctrin is Apoftolical ? Efpe- cially feeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rational difcourfe from any other defined by them. If thev were approved by them, this I hope was a fufficient definition : and therefore you were beft rub your forehead hard, and lay, that thefe Books were never queftioned. But if you do fa, then I mail be bold to ask you, what Books you meant in faying before, Some Books which were not always known to be Canonical, have been afterwards re- ceived ? Then for the Book of Macchabes, I hope you will lay, it was defined for Canonical before S. Gregories time: and yet he, lib. 19. Moral, c.15. citing a teftimo- ny out of it, prefaceth to it after this matter, Concerning which matter we do not amifi if we produce a tejtimony out of Books although not Canonical, yet fet forth, for the edification of the Church. For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees, &c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonical, is without queftion, at leait to queftion it. Moreover, be- caufe you are fo pun&ual, as to talk of words and fyllables, I would know whether before Sixtus Quint us his time, your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture, or not ? If not, then was your Church fiirely a moft vigilant keeper of Scripture, that for 1500. years had not defined what was Scripture, and what was not. If it had, then I de- mand, was it that, fet forth by Sixtus> or that, let forth by Clement, or a third different from both ? If it were that fet forth by Sixths, then is it now condemned by Clement : if that of Clement, it was condemned I fay, but fure you will fay contradicted and queftioned by Sixtm ; If diffe- rent from both, then was it queftioned and condemned by irS Points rightly diftinguified by both, and ftill lies under the condemnation. But then laftly, fuppofe it had been true, That both fome Book not known to be Canonical had been received, and that never any after receiving had been queft toned: How had this been a iign that the Church is infallibly affifted by the Holy Ghoft ? In what mood or figure, would this conclufion follow out of thefe Premifes ? Certainly your flying to fuch poor figns, as thefe are, is to me a great iign, that you labour with penury of better arguments: and that, thus to catch at madows and bulruihes, is a fhrewd iign of a finking caufe. 50. Ad §. 13. We are told here, That the general pro- mi (es of Infallibility to the Church , mufl not be refrained only to points fundamental : Becaufe then the Apofiles words and writings may alfo befo refrained. Anf. This alfo may be done, but if it be done, may eafi- ly be confuted. It is done to our hand in this very Para- graph, by five words taken out of Scripture, All Scripture 25 divinely inffired. Shew but as much for the Church : Shew where it is written, 7/&*f all the decrees of the Church are divinely injpired ; and the Controverfie will be at an end. Befides, there is not the fame reafbn for the Churches abfblute Infallibility, as for the Apoftles and Scriptures. For if the Church fall into error, it may be reformed by com- paring it with the rule of the Apoftles do&rine and Scri- pture. But if the Apoftles have erred in delivering the do- ctrine of Chnftianity, to whom fhall we have recourfe, for the difcovering and corre&ing their error ? Again, there is not fo much ftrength required in the Edifice as in the Foundation : and if but wife men have the ordering of the building, they will make it much a furer thing, that the foundation fhall not fail the building, than that the building fhall not fall from the foundation. And though the building be to be of Brick or Stone, and perhaps of Wood, yet if it may be poffibly, they will have a Rock for their foundation, whofe ftability is a much more indubi- table thing, than the adherence of the ftru&ure to it. Now the Apoftles and Prophets,and Canonical Wnters,are the foundation of the Church, according to that of S.Paul, built into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 177 luilt upon the foundation of Apo files and Prophets* therefore their Stability, in reaibn ought to be greater than the Chur- ches, which is built upon them. Again, a dependent In- fallibility (efpecially if the dependence be voluntary) can- not be lb certain, as that on which it depends : But the In- fallibility of the Church, depends upon the Infallibility of the Apoftles, and the ftreightnels of the thing regulated, upon the ftreightnefs of the Rule : and befides this depen- dence is voluntary, for it is in the power of the Church to deviate frcm this Rule ; being nothing elfe but an aggre- gationofmen, of which every one has freewill, and is Subject to paflions and error : Therefore the Churehes in- fallibility, is not (b certain as that of the Apoftles. ;i. Laftly, Quid verba audiam, cum facia videaml If you be (b infallible as the Apoftles were, Shew it as the A- poftles did ; They went forth (faith S. Mark) and Preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming their words with Signs following. It is impoffible that God fhould lie, and that the eternal Truth mould fet his hand and feal to the confirmation of a falihood, or of fiich Do- drin as is partly true and partly falfe. The Apoftles Do- clnn was thus confirmed, therefore it was intirely true, and in no part either falfe or uncertain. I fay in no part of that which they delivered conftantly, as a certain divine Truth, and which had the Atteftation of Divine Mira- cles. For that the Apoftles themfelves, even after tha lending of the Holy Ghoft, were, and through inadver- tence or prejudice, continued for a time in an error, re- pugnant to a revealed Truth, it is as I have already noted unanfiverably evident, from the fiery of the ABs of the A- fofiles. For notwithstanding our Saviours exprefs warrant and mjun&ion, to go and preach to all Nations , yet until S. Peter was better informed by avifion from Heaven, and by the conversion of Cornelius, both he and the reft of the Church, held it unlawful, for them, to go or preach the Gofpel to any but the Jews. ; 2 . And for thofe things which they profefs to deliver as the dictates of human reaibn and prudence, and not as divine Revelations, why we mould take them to be divine A a revelations, 1^8 Tolnts rightly aiftinguijlied revelations, I fee no reafbn; nor how we can ao f5, and not contradict the Apoftles, and God himfelf. Therefore when S.Paul fays,, in the fifft Epiftle to tht Corinth. 7, 12. To the reft /peak I, not the Lord; And again,, concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I deliver my Judgment: if we will pretend, that the Lord did certain- ly fpeak, what S. Paul fpake, and that his judgment was Gods commandment, fhall we not plainly contradict S.Paul, and that fpirit by which he wrote ? which moved him to Write, as in other places divine Revelations, which he certainly knew to be fuch, fo in this place, his own judgment, touching fome things which God had not par- ticularly revealed unto him. 34. Obj. But if the Apoftles were Infallible , in all things propofed by them as divine Truths, the like muft be affirmed of the Church, becaufe Proteftants teach the promife (of leading into all Truth) to be verified in the Church. Anf. It's true that to the Apoftles the promife was made, and to them only, yet the words are true alfb of the Church. But they agree to the Apoftles in a higher, to the Church in a lower fenfe : to the Apoftles in more abfolute, to the Church in a more limited fenfe. To the Apoftles ab- folutely, for the Churches direction : to the Church Conditio- nally by adherence to that direction, and fo far as Jhe doth ad- here to it. In a word, the Apoftles were led into all Truths by the Spirit, efficaciter : The Church is led alfb into all Truth by the Apoftles writings, fufficienter. - So that the Apoftles and the Church, may be fitly compared to the Star and the Wifemen. The Star was dire&ed by the finger of God, and could not but go right to the place where Chrift was: But the Wifemen were led by the Star to Chrift ; led by it, I fay, not efficaciter, or irrefiftibiliter, but fufficienter, fb that if they would they might follow it, if they would not, they might choofe. So was it between the Apoftles writing Scriptures, and the Church. They in their writing were infallibly affifted to propofe nothing as a divine Truth, but what was fb. The £nurch is alfo led into all Truth, but it is by the intervening of the A- poftles writings : But it is,as the Wifemen were led by the Star, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. Star, or as a Traveller is dire&ed by a Mercurial Statue, or as a Pilot by his Card and Compafs: led fufficient- ly, but not irrefiftibly : led fb that me may follow, not fb that ihe mult For feeing the Church is a fo- ciety of men, whereof every one ( according to the Do&rine of the Romijl) Church) hath free-will in be- lieving, it follows, that the whole aggregate has free- will in believing. And if any man fay that at leaft it ts morally impojfible, that of fo many whereof all may believe aright , not any jhould do fo: I anlwcr. It is true, if they did all give themielves any liberty of judgment. But if all (as the cafe is here) captivate their underftandings to one of them, all are as likely to err as that one. And he more likely to err than any other, becaufe he may err and thinks he cannot, and becaufe he conceives the Spi- rit absolutely promifed to the fiicceflion of Birtiops, of which many have been nocorioufly and confefledly wicked men, Men of the World: whereas this Spirit is the Sprit of Truth , whom the world cannot receive^ becaufe he feeth him not, neither knoweth him. %%. Ad §. 1 6. To this Paragraph, which pretends to mew, that if the Catholick Church be fallible in fome points, it follows, that no true Protefiant can with ajjurance belzevs the Unwerfal Church in any one pint of Doclrin. I Anfwer. Though the Church being not Infallible, I cannot believe her in every thing (he fays, yet lean and muft believe her in every thing me proves, either by Scripture, Reafon, or Univerfal Tradition, be it Funda- mental, or be it not Fundamental. This you fay, we can- not, in points not Fundamental, becaufe in fuch we believe {be may err. But this I know, we can : becaufe though ilie may err in fome things, yet fhe does not err in what ftie proves, though it be not Fundamental. Again you fay, we cannot do it in Fundamentals, becaufe we muft know what points be Fundamental, before we go to learn of her. Not fo, but I muft learn of the Church, or of fome part of the Church, or I cannot know any thing Fundamen- tal or not Fundamental. For how can I come to know, that there was fuch a Man as Chrift, that he taught fuch A a 2 Dodrin, *79 180 Points rightly diftinguifloed Do&rin, that he and his Apoftles did fuch miracles in confirmation of it, that the Scripture is Gods Word, un- lets I be taught it. So then the Church is., though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith , yet a necejjary intro- duction to it. 39. But the Churches infallible direction, extending only to Fundamentals, unlefi I know them before I go to learn of her, 1 may be rather deluded than inflrutted by her. The reafon and connexion of this confequence, I fear neither I nor you do well underftand. And befides I muft tell you., you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you, that the Church is an infallible direcler in Fundamentals. For if fhe were fo, then muft we not only learn Fundamentals of her, but alfo learn of her what is fundament al, and take all for fun- damental which (he delivers to be fuch. In the performance whereof, if I knew any one Church to be infallible^ would quickly be of that Church. But good Sir, you muft needs do us this favor, to be fo acute, as to diftinguifh between, being infallible in fundamentals, and being an infallible guide in fun- damentals. That there fliall be always a Church infallible in fundamentals, we eafily grant; for it comes to no more but this, that therejhall be always a Church. But that there ihall be always fuch a Church, which is an infallible Guide in' fundamentals, this we deny. For this cannot be without fetling a known infallibility in fome one known fbciety of Chriftians, (as the Greek or the Roman, or fome other Church) by adhering to which Guide, men might be gui- ded to believe aright in all Fundamentals. A man that were deftituteof all means of communicating his thoughts to others, might yet in himfelf, and to himfelrbe infallible, but he could not be a Guide to others. A man or a Church that were invifible, fo that none could know how to repair to it for direction, could not be an infallible guide, and yet he might be in himfelf infallible. You fee then there is a wide difference between thele two, and therefore I muft befeech you not to confound them, nor to take the one for the other. . 40. But they that know what feints are Fundamental, tiherwife than by the Churches authority , learn not of the Church Yes, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 1 8 1 Yes, they may learn of the Church, that the Scripture is the word of God, and from the Scripture, that fuch points are fundamental, others are not fb; and confequently learn, even of the Church, even of your Church, that all is not fundamental, nay air is not true, which the Church teacheth to be fb. Neither do I fee 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 Mafter in Phyfick, or the Mathematicks, I may learn thofe rules and principles, by which I may confute my Mafters erroneous conclusions. 41. But you ask, If the Church be not an infallible teacher , why are we commanded to hear3 to feeky to obey the Church ? I Anfwer. For commands to feek the Church > I have not yet met with any, and I believe you, if you were to ftiew them, would be your felf to leek. But yet if you could p«>duce fome fuch, we might feek the Church to many good purpofes, without fiippofing her a Guide infallible. And then for hearing and obeying the Church , I would fain know, whether none may be heard and obeyed, but thole that are infallible ? Whether particular Churches, Go- vernors, Pallors, Parents, be not to be heard and obeyed? Or whether all thefe be Infallible ? I wonder you will thruft upon us fb often, thefe worn-out Objedions, without taking notice of their Anfwers. 42. Your Argument from S. Auftines firfl: place, is a fallacy, A dt5lo fecundum quid ad diftum /implicit er. if the TV hole Church prattife any of thefe things (matters of or- der and decency 3 for fuch only there he fpeaks of, ) to di/fute whether that ought to be done, js mfolent madnefs. And from lience you infer, If the whole Church praclife any thing, to difpute whether it ought to be done> is infolent madnefi. As if there were no difference between any thing, and any of thefe things ? Or as if I might not efteem it pride and folly, to contradict and difturb the Church for matter of order, pertaining to the time and place, and other circumirances of Gods worfhip ; and yet account it neither pride nor folly, to go about to reform fbme errors, which the Church hath fuffered to come in, and to vitiate the very fubftance l%1 Taints rightly diftinguifoed fubftance of Gods worftiip. It was a practice of the whole Church in Saint Aufimes time, and efteemed an Apofto- lick Tradition, even by Saint Auftine himfelf, That the Eucharifi foould be adminifired to Infants : Tell me Sir, I befeech you ; Had it been infblent madnefs to difpute againft: this pra&ice, or had it not ? If it had, how mib- lent and mad are you, that have not only difputed againft it, but utterly abohfhed it ? If it had not, then as I fay, you mull underftand Saint Aufiines words, not (imply of all things, but ( as indeed he himfelf reftrained them) of thefe things, of matter of Order, Decency, and Uni- formity. 44. Obj. But the Doctrines, that Infants are to he bap- tized, and thofe that are baptized by Hereticks, are not to be re- baptized, are neither of them to be proved by Scripture : And yet according to S. Auftine they are true Doclrins^andwe may be certain of them upon the Authority of the Church, which ifre could not be, unleJZ the Church were Infallible ; therefore the Church is Infallible, I anfwer, that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough, of the Univerlal Tradi- tions of the ancient Church, fuch as in S. Aufliris ac- count, thefe were which here are fpoken of, and yet not be certain enough, of the definitions of the prefent Church. Unlefs you can mew (which I am fure you can never do) that the Infallibility of the prefent Church, was always a Tradition of the ancient Church. Now your main bu- finefs is to prove the prefent Church Infallible, not fb much in configning^ ancient Traditions, as in defining emergent controverfies. Again, it follows not, becaufe the Churches Authority, is warrant enough for us to be- lieve fbme Do&nn, touching which the Scripture is fi- lent, therefore it is Warrant enough to believe thefe, to which the Scripture feeras repugnant. Now theDo&rins which S. Auftin received upon the Churches Authority, were of the firft fort ; the Do&nns for which we deny your Churches Infallibility are of the fecond. And there- fore though the Churches Authority, might be ftrong enough, to b ar the weight which S. Auftin laid upon it, yet happily 1 -ay not be ftrong enough, to bear that which into Fundamental and not Fundamental. which you lay upon it. Though it may fupport lome Do&nnes without Scripture, yet furely not againft it. And laft of all, to deal ingenioufly with you and the world, I am not fuch an Idolater of S. Auft'm> as to think a thing proved fufficiently becaufe he fays it, nor that all his fen- tences are Oracles; and particularly in this thing, that whatfbever was pra&ifed or held by the Univerfal Church of his time, muft needs have come from the Apoftles. Though confidering the nearnefs of his time to the Apo- ftles, I think it a good probable way, and therefore am apt enough to follow it, when I fee no reafbn to the con- trary. Yet I profefs I muft have better fatisfadion, before I can induce my felf to hold it certain and infallible. And this, not becaufe Popery would come m at this door, as fbme have vainly feared, but becaufe by the Church U- niverfal of fbme time, and the Church Univerfal of other times, I fee plain contradictions held and pra&ifed. Both which could not come from the Apoftles, for then the Apoftles had been teachers of falsehood. And there- fore the belief or pradice of the prefent Univerfal Church, can be no infallible proof, that the Do&rin fb believed, or the cuftom fb pra&ifed came from the Apoftles. I m- ftance in the Dodrine of the Millenaries, and the Eucha- rifis neceffity for Infants : both which Do&rines have been taught by the content of the eminent Fathers, of fbme ages, without any oppofition from any of their Contem- poraries: and were delivered by them, not as Do&ors, but as Witnefles, not as their.own Opinions, but as Apo- ftolick Traditions. And therefore meafunng the Dodrin of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinal Perron gives us for that purpofe, both thefe Doctrines muft be acknowledged to have been the Do&rines of the Ancient Church of fome age, or ages 4 And that the contrary Do&rines were Catholick at fbme other time, I be- lieve you will not think it needful for me to prove. So that either I muft fay, the Apoftles were fountains of contradictious Doctrines, or that being the Univer- fal Do&rine of the prefent Church, is no fu'fficient proof that it came originally from the Apoftles. Be- fides,, 18; 1 84 "Points rightly diftinguiflicd fides, who can warrant us, that the Universal Traditi- ons of the Church were all Apoftolical? feeing in that * De Corona famous place for Traditions, in Tertuilian, * Mukunque MiRtk, c 3. tr adit or, any Author whatfbever is founder good enough & 4. Where for them. And who can fecure us, that Humane inven- tecPfu dnTuh- c^ons^ aiu^ ^uc^ as came * quocunque Traditore, might not in written Tradi- a ^i0rt time, gai11 the reputation of Apoftolick! Seeing the tions then ob- direction then was, b Trecepta ir.ajorum Apoftolicas Tradjti- ferved by Chri- ones qui f que exiftimat. itians, many whereof, by the way/notwithitanding the Council of Trent s profelTion, to receive them and the written jVord with the like affectum of Piety) are now rejected and neglect- ed by the Church of Rome : For example Immcrfwn in Baptifm ; Taftwg a mixture of Mili{ and Ho ney frefently after -> Abftaining from Bathes for a weel^ after ; Account- ing it an impiety to pray kneeling on the Lords day, or between Eafier and Pentecofh J fay, having reckoned up thefe and other Traditions in the 3. chap. He adds another in the fourth, of the Veiling of Women ; And then adds, Since I find no law for this, it follows that Tradition mufi have given this obfervation to cuftom, which /hall gain in time, Apoftolicl^ authority by the interpretation of the re of on of it. By thefe ex- amples therefore it k declared, that tbe observing of unwritten Tradition, being con- finned by cuftom, may be defended. The perfeverance of the obfervation b i?ig a good teftimony of the goodneft of the Tradition. Now cuftom even in civil affairs where a law is wanting, paffes for a law. Neither is it material whether it be grounded en Scripture, or reafon ; feeing reafin is ccmmcndatic?i enough for a law. Moreover if law be grounded on reafon, all that muft be law, which is jb grounded.— Aquocunque produdtum Wuofoever n the producer of it. Do ye thir\it is not lawful, Omnifide- li, for every faithful man to conceive and conftitute ? Provided he conftnute only what is not repugnant to Gods will, what is conducible for difcipline and available to falvation ? feeing the Lord fays, why even of our f elves, judge ye not what is right ? And a little after, This reafon now demand, faving the refpect of the Tradition,-— A quocunque Traditore cenfetur, nee audtorem refpiciens fed Auctoritatem ; From whatfoever Traditor it comes , neither regard the Author but the Authority. fc Hier. P 46. But let us fee what S. Chryfofiom fays, They (the A- poftles) delivered not all things in writing (who denies it ? ) but many things alfo without writing, (who doubts of it ? ) and thefe alfo are worthy of belief. Yes, if we knew what they were. But many things are worthy of belief, which are not neceflary to be believed : As that Julius Cafar was Emperor of Rome is a thing worthy of belief, being fo well teftified as it is, but yet it is not neceflary to be belie- ved ; a man may be faved without it. Thofe many works which our Saviour did (which S.John fuppofes> would not have into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 1 85 have been contained in a World of Books ) if they had been written, or if God by fbme other means had preserved the knowledge of them, had been as worthy to be be- lieved, and as neccfTary as thofe that are written. But to fhew you how much a more faithful keeper Records are than report, thofe few that were written are preferved and believed, thofe infinity more that were not written, are all loft and vaniihed out of the memory of men. And feeing God in his providence, hath not thought fit to preferve the memory of them, he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them : for every obligation ceafes, when it becomes impoffible. Who can doubt but the Primitive Chnftians, to whom the Epiftles of the A po- tties were written, either of themfelves underftood, or were inftru&ed by the Apoftles, touching the fenfe of the obfeure places of them ? Thefe Traditive interpre- tations, had they been written and difperfed, as the Scri- ptures were, had without queftion been preferved, as the Scriptures are. JBut to fhew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition, the Church of Rome hath been, or even the Catholick Church, for Want of writing they are all loft, nay were all loft, within a few Ages after Chrift. - So that if we confult the Ancient Interpreters, we fhall hard- ly find any two of them agree about the fenfe of any one of them. Cardinal Terron> in his difcourfe of Tra- ditions, having alledged this place for them, Hold the Traditions , &c. tell us we mufi not anfwer, that S. Paul [peaks here, only of fuch Traditions , which (though not in this Epifi. to the Theilalonians) yet were afterwards w itten, and in other Books of Scripture : becaufe it is upon occafion of Tradi- tion (touching the cauje of the hinder ance of the coming of Antichnft,) which was never written, that he lays this in- junction upon the?n3 to hold the Traditions. Well, let us grant this Argument good, and concluding; and that the Church of the Theffalomans , or the Catholick Church (for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to ail J were to hold fbme unwritten Traditions, and among the reft, what was the caufe of the hinderance of the com- ing of Antichrifi. But what if they did not perform B b their 1 86 T tints rightly di ft ingui^ed their duty in this point, but differed this Tradition to be loft out of the memory of the Church ? Shall we not conclude, that feeing God would not differ any thing neceflary to Salvation to be loft, and he has differed this Tradition to be loft, therefore the knowledge or belief of ic, though it were a profitable thing, yet it was not neceflary? I hope you will not challenge fuch authority over us, as to oblige us to impossibilities, to do that which you cannot do your felves. It is therefore requiiite that you make this command poffible to be obeyed, before you require obedience unto it. Are you able then to in- ftrud us fb well, as to be fit to fay unto us, Now ye know what withholdethl Or do you your (elves know that ye may inftruft us ? Can ye, or dare you fay, this or this was this hindrance which S. Taul here meant, and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it ? Or if you can- not, (as' I am certain you cannot) go then,, and Vaunt your Church, for the only Watchful, Faithful, Infallible Keeper of the Apoftles Traditions ; when here this very Tradition, which here in particular was depofited with the TheJJ'alonians and the Premitive Church, you have utter- ly loft it, fb that there is no Footftep or print of it re- maining, which with Divine Faith we may rely upon. Blefled therefore be the goodnefs of God, who feeing that what was not written, was in fuch danger to be loft, took order, that what was neceflary mould be written ! S. Chryfoftoms counfel therefore, of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief, we are willing to obey : And if you can of any thing make it appear, that it is Tradi- tion, we will leek no farther. But this we fay withal, that we are perdiaded we cannot make this appear in any thing, but only the Canon of Scripture, and that there is nothing now extant, and to be known by us, which can put in fb good Plea, to be the unwritten Word of God, as the unqueftioned Books of Canonical Scripture, to be the written Word of God. 47. You conclude this Paragraph with a fentence of S. Auftiris who fays, The Church doth not approve, nor dijfemble% nor do thefe things which are againfi Faith or into Fundamental and not Fundamental. I b or good Life : and from hence you conclude, that it never hath done fo> nor never can do fo. But though the argu- ment hold in Logick a von pojj'e, ad non ej]e, yet I never heard, that it would hold back again, d non efie, ad non fojje. The Church cannot do this, therefore it does it not, follows with good confequence : but the Church does not this, therefore it mall never do it, nor can never do it, this I believe will hardly follow. In the Epiftle next before to the fame Januarius, writing of the fame matter, he hath thefe words, It remains that the thing ycu inquire of, muft be 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 again ft Faith or good manners. And why do you not in- fer from hence, that no particular Church can bring up any Cufiom that is againft Faith or good manners ? Certainly this confequence has as good reafon for it as the former. If a man fay of the Church of England, (what S Auft'tn of the Church) that me neither approves, nor diflembies, nor does any thing againft Faith or good manners, would you colled prefently, that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible ? Furthermore, it is obfervable out of this, and the former Epiftle, that this Church which did not (as S. Auftm according to you, thought) approve or difftmble, or do any thing againft Faith or good Life, did yet tolerate and difTemble vain fuperfti- tions, and humane preemptions, and fuffer all places to be full of them, and to be ex&&sa, as, nay more feverely than the commandments of God himfelf. This S. Auftin himfelf profeiTeth in this very Epiftle. This (faith he) i" do infinitely grieve at, that many moft whole fom precepts of the Divine Scripture, are little regarded ; ajidin the mean time, all is fo full of fo many preemptions, that he is more grievoufly found fault with, who during his ottaves, toucheth the Earth with his naked Foot , than he that fljall bury his Soul m Drunkennefs. Of thefe he fays, that they were neither contained in Scripture, decreed by Councils, ?ior corroborated by the Cujlom of the Universal Church. And though not againft Faith, yet unprofitable burdens of Chrifiian Liberty, which Bb a made j88 Points rightly diftinguifhed made the condition of the Jews more tolerable than that of Ghriftians. And therefore heprofefles of them, Appro\are non pof]'um> I cannot approve them. And ubi fa cult as tribuitur, refecanda exiftimo, I think they are to be cut off, where foever we have power. Yet fb deeply were they rooted, and ipread fo far, through the indilcreet devotion of the Peo- ple, always more prone to fuperftion than true Piety, and through the connivence of the Governors, who mould have ftrangled them at their Birth, that himfelf, though he grieved at them, and could not allow them, yet for fear of offence he durft not fpeak again ft them, mult a hujufmodi propter nonnullarum vel fanctarum irei turbulent a- rum pcrfonarum fcandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo. Many of thefe things for fear of fcandalizing many holy perfons , or provoking thofe that are turbulent, I dare not freely dif allow. Nay, the Catholick Church it (elf, did fee and diiTemble, and tolerate themj for thefe are the things of which he prefently fays after, the Church of God fand you will have him fpeak of the true Catho- lick Church) placed between Chaffe and Tares, tolerates ma- ny things. Which was directly againft the command of the Holy Spirit, given the Church by S, Paul ; To ft and faft in that liberty wherewith Chrift hath made her free, and not to fuffer her [elf to be brought in bondage to thefe furvile burdens. Our Saviour tells the Scribes and Pharifees., that in vain they Worflriped God, teaching for Doctrines mens Commandments : For that laying afide the Commandments of God, they held the Traditions of men, as the waging of Pots, and Cups, and many other fuch like things. Certainly that which S, Au&in complains of, as the general fault of Chrif tians of his time, was parallel to this : Mult a (faith \\S) o}uc£ in divinis libris faluberrima precept a funt, minus curantur; This I fuppofe I may very well render in our Saviours Words, The commandments of God are laid afide ; and then ; tarn multis prefumptiomb^s fie plena funt omnia, all things, or all places, are fo full of jo many prejumptions, and thofe exacted with fuch jeverity, nay with Tyranny, that he was more fever el y cen[ured9 who in the time of his Octaves touched the Earth with his naked Feet, than he which drown- ed into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 189 ed and buried his Soul in Drink. Certainly, if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandments, I know not what is. And therefore thefe fuperflitious Chnftians might be faid, to Worflnp God in *uain> as well as Scribes and Pharifees. And yet great variety of fiiperftitions of this kind, were then already fpread over the Church, being different in divers place. This is plain from thefe Words of S. Auflin of them, diverforum locorum diverfis moribus innumerabiliter variantur ; and apparent, becaufe the ftream of them was grown fo violent, that he durft not oppofe it, liberies improbarc non audeo} I dare not freely Jfieak againft them. So that to fay, the- Catholick Church tolerated all this, and for fear of offence, durft not abrogate or con- demn it, is to fay ( if we Judge rightly of it ) that the Church with iilence and connivence generally tolerated Chnftians to worfiup God in vain. Now how this tolera- ting of Univerfal fuperftition in the Church, can conlift with the affiftance and direction of Gods omnipotent fpirit to guard it from fuperftition, and with the accom- plishment of that pretended Prophefie of the Church, I have fet Watchmen upon thy Walls , O Jerufalem, which frail never hold their peace Day nor Night ; befides how' thefe fuperftitions being thus nouriilied, chenfhed, and ftrength- ned by the practice of the moft, and urged with great violence upon others as the commandments of God, and but fearfully oppofed or contradicted by any, might in time take fiich deep Root, and fpread their Branches fb far, as to pafs for Univerfal Cuftomsof the Church, he that does not fee, fees nothing. Efpeciallv, conii- dering the^ catching and contagious nature of this fin, and how f aft ill Weeds fpread, and how true and expe- rimented that rule is of the Hiftorian, Exempla non con- fifitmi ttbi incipiunt, fed quamlibet in tenuem recepta tramitem latijjlme evagandi fibi faciunt pote/fatem. Examples do not itay where they begin, but tho at firft pent up in a nar- row TraA, they make themfelves room for extravagant wandrings. Nay that fome fiich fuperftition had not al- ready even in S. Auftins time, prevailed fb far, as to be Confuetudme univerfa Ecclefa roboratam3 confirmed by the Cuftoui 1 90 Toints rightly dift'wguifoti Ciiftom of the Univerfal Church, who can doubt that confiders, that the pra&icc of Communicating Infants, had even then got the credit, and authority, not only of an Univerfal Cuftom , but alfb of an Apoftolick Tra- dition. 49. But now after all this ado, what if S. Auftin fays not this which is pretended of the Church, viz,. That fie neither approves, nor difiembles, nor pracJifies any thing agawft Faith or good Life, but only of good men in the Church ? Certainly, though fbme Copies read as you would have , it, yet you mould not have diflembled, that others read the place otherwife, vix. Ecclefia mult a tolerat, & tamen, quee funt contra Fidem & bonam vitam, nee bonus approbate &C. The Church tolerates many things ; and yet what is againfl Faith or gocd Life, a good man will neither approve, nor dif- femble, nor praclife. 50. Ad £. 1 7. That Abraham begat Ifiaacc, is a point very far from being Fundamental ; and yet I hope you will grant , that Vrote fit ants believing Scripture to be the Word of God, may be certain enough of the truth and certainty of it. For what if they fay that the Cathclick Church, and much more thetnfelves may pojfibly Err in forne unfundamental points, it is therefore confequent, they can be certain of none fuch ? What if a wifer man than I may miftajce the fenfe of fbme obfeure place of Ariftotle, may I nor therefore without any arrogance or inconfe- quence, conceive my felf certain that I under/land him in fomc plain places, which carry their fenfe before them ? And then for points Fundamental, to what purpofe do you fay, That we muft fir [I know what they be, before we can be afiured that we cannot Err in under fan ding the Scripture ; when we pretend not at all to any affurance that we cannot Err, but only to a fufficient certainty, that we do not Err, but rightly underftand thofe things that are plain, whether Fundamental or not Fundamental? That God is, and is a rewarder of them that feek him : That there is no Salvation but by faith in Chrifi : That by repentance and Faith in Chrifi Remi/fion of fins may be obtained : That there fall be a Refurretfion of the Body : Thefe we conceive both into Fund-amental and not Fundamental. 1 91 true, becaufe the Scripture favs fb, and Truths Funda- mental, becaufe they are neceilary parts of the Go (pel, whereof our Saviour faies, J^iji non credulerit, damnabitur. All which we eitrier learn from Scripture immediately, or learn of thofe that learn it of Scripture, fb that neither Learned nor Unlearned pretend to know thefe things independently cf Scripture. And therefore in imputing this to us , you cannot excufe your felf from having done us a palpable injury. 52. Ad $. 19. ] To that which is here urged of the dif- ferences amongft Protefiants concerning many points : I anfwer, that thofe differences between Protefiants concern- ing Errors damnable and not damnable, Truths Funda«* mental and not Fundamental, may be eafily reconciled. For either the Error they fpeak of may he purely and Jim- ply involuntary, or it may be in refpeft of the caufe of it 'voluntary. If the caufe of it be fome voluntary and a- voidable fault, the Error is it felf finful, and confequent- ly in its own nature damnable ; As if by negligence in feeking the Truth, by unwillingnefs to find it, by Pride, by obftinacy, by defiring that Religion ftiould be true which futes beft with my ends, by fear of mens ill opi- nion, or any other worldly fear, or any other worldly hope, I betray my felf to any Error contrary to any Di- vine revealed Truth, that Error may be juftly filled a fin, and confequently of it felf to fuch a one damnable. But if I be guilty of none of thefe faults, but bedefirous to know the Truth, and diligent in feeking it, and advife not at all with Flelh and Blood about the choice of my opi- ons, but only with God, and that Reafbn that he hath given me, if I be thus qualified, and yet through human infirmity fall into Error, that Error cannot be damnable. Again,- the party erring may be conceived either to die with contrition for all his fins known and unknown, or without it ; If he die without it, this Error in it felf damnable, will be likewife fb unto him : If he die with contrition (a6 his Error can be no impediment but he may) his Error though in it felf damnable, to him according to your Do&rine, will not prove fb. And therefore fbme of 19 1 Points rightly difiinguijloed of thofe Authors whom you quote., {peaking of Errors whereunto men were betrayed* or wherein they were kept by their Fault,or Vice,or Pa (lion (as for the moft part men are:) Others (peaking of them/ as Errors limply and purely involuntary, and the effe&s of human mfir- mity ; fbme as they were retracted by Contrition (to u(e your own phrafe) others, as they were not ; no marvel though they have pail upon them, fome a heavier, and {bme a milder, fbme anabfblving, and fbme a condemn- ing (entence. The leaft of all thefe Errors, which here you mention, having malice enough too frequently mix- ed with it, to fink a man deep enough into Hell : and the greateft of them all, being according to your Prin- ciples, either no fault at all, or very Venial, where there is no malice of the will conjoyned with it. And if it be, yet as the moft malignant poyfon, will not poyfon him that receives with it a more powerful Antidote : fb I am confident your ownDocirine will force you to confefs, that whofoever dies with Faith in Chnft, and Contriti- on for all fins known and unknown (in which heap all his finful Errors muft be comprized J can no more be hurt by any the moft malignant and peftilent Error, than S. Faul by the Viper which he fhook oft into the fire. Now touching the necejfity of Repentance from Dead works , and Fajth in Chrifi Jefm the Son of God, and Saviour of the World, they all agree ; and therefore you cannot deny, but they agree about all that is (imply necefiary. More- over, though, if they fhould go about to choofe out of Scripture all thefe Propositions' and Dodrines which in- tegrate and make up the Body of Chriftian Religion, per- adventure there would riot be fo exact agreement amongft them, as lome (ay there was between the 70. Interpreters, in Tranflating the Old Teftament ; yet thus far without Controverfie they do all agree, that in the Bible all. thefe things are contained, and therefore, that wholbever does truly and fincerely believe the Scripture, muft of neceftity either in Hypoihefi, or at leaft inthefi, either formally, or at leaft virtually, either explicitly, or at leaft impliately, either in Att or at ieaft in preparation of mind, believe all into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 19$ all things Fundamental : It being not Fundamental, nor required of Almighty God, to believe the true fenfe of Scripture in all places, but only that we mould endeavour to do fo, and be prepared in mind to do fo, whenfoever it mall be f ufficiently propounded to us. Suppofe a man in fbme difeafe were prcicnbed a Medicine confifting of twenty ingredients, and he advifing with Phylitians , mould find them differing in Opinion about it, (ome of them telling him, that all the ingredients were abfolutely neceilary ; ibme, that only (bme of them were neceilary, the reft only profitable, and requifite ad melius ejje, laft- ly (bme, that fome only were neceilary, fome profitable, and the reft fuperfluous, yet not hurtful ; Yet all with one accord agreeing in this, That the whole receipt bad in it all things neceftary for the recovery of his health, and that if he made ule of it, he mould infallibly find it fuccefs- ful : what wife man would not think they agreed fuffici- ently for his dire&ion to the recovery of his health ? Juft fb, thefe Trot eft ant Doctors, with whofe di (cords you make fuch Tragedies, agreeing in Theft thus far, that the Scripture evidently contains all things neceftary to Salvation, both for matter of Faith and of pra&ice, and that who- foever believes it, and endeavours to find the true fenfe of it, and to conform his Life unto it, mall certainly per- form all things neceftary to Salvation, and undoubtedly be faved; agreeing I fay thus far, what matters it for the dire&ion of men to Salvation, though they differ in opi- nion, touching what points are abfolutely neceilary, and ' what not ? What Errors abfolutely repugnant to Salvati- on, and what not ? Efpecially confidenng that although they differ about the Queftion of the neceftity of thefe Truths, yet for the molt part they agree in this that Truths they are, and profitable at leaft, though not limply ne- ceilary. And though they differ in the Queftion, whe- ther the contrary Errors be definitive of Salvation, or no, yet in this they confent, that Errors they are, and hurtful to Religion, though not deftru&ive of Salvation. Now that which God requires of us is this; That we ihould believe the Doctrines of the Goipel to be Truths, C c not i 94 Feints rightly diftinguifted not all, neceflary Truths, for all are not lb, and confe* quently, the repugnant Errors to be falfhoods ; yet not all fuch falihoods, as unavoidably draw with them dam- nation upon all that hold them, for all do not fb. 55. Yea but you fay, it is very requifite we jhould agree upon a particular Catalogue of Fundamental points, for 'without fuch a Catalogue , no man can be afiured whether or no, he hath Faith fufficient jo Salvation. This I utterly deny as a thing evidently falli, and I wonder you mould content your felf magiftenally to fay fb, without offering any proof of it. I might much more) uftly, think it enough barely to deny it, without refutation, but I will not. Thus therefore I argue againfr it. Without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I may be afiured or the Truth of this Ailertion, if it be true, That the Scripture contains all necefiary points of Faith, and know that I believe expiicitely all that is expreft in Scripture, and lmplicitely all that is contained in them : Now he that believes all this, mult of neceffity believe all things neceffary ; There- fore without being able to make a Catalogue of Funda- mentals, I may be affured that I believe all things necei- fary, and coniequently that my Faith is fufficient. 1 laid., of the truth of this Ailertion, if it be true : Becaufe I will not here enter into the Queftion of the truth of it, ic being fufficient for my preient purpofe, that it may be true, and may be believed without any dependence upon a Catalogue of Fundamentals. And therefore if this be all your reaion, to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals, we cannot but think your demand unrea- sonable. Efpecially having your felf exprefled the caufe of the difficulty of it, and that is, Becaufe Scripture doth deliver Divine Truths, but feldom qualifies them, or declares whether they be or be not abfolutely necefjary to Salvation, Yet not fo feldom, but that out of it I could give you an abitrad of the EfTential parts of Chriftianity, if it were neceflai y, but I have fhewed it not fb, by confuting your reafbn, pretended for the neceffity of it, and at this time I have no leifure to do you courtefies that are fo trou- blefbm to my felf Yet thus much I will promife, that when into Fundamental and not Fundamental. I o ^ when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Pro- pofals with one hand, you mall receive a particular Ca- talogue of what I conceive Fundamental, with the other. For as yet, I fee no fuch fair proceeding as you talk of, nor any performance on your own part of that which fo clamoroufly you require on ours. For as for the Ca- talogue which here* you have given us, in faying. Tou are obliged under pain of damnation to believe what fewer the Catholick vifible Church of Chrifi propofeth as revealed mighty God, it is like a covey of one Patridg, or a flock of one fheep, or a Fleet compo fed of one Ship, or an Army of one man. The Author of Charity Miftakcn, demands a particular Cataloge of Fundamental points ; And We ( lay you ) again and again demand fuch a Catalogue. And fure- ly, if this one Propolition, which here you think to Hop our mouths with, be a Catalogue, yet at lead fuch a Ca- talogue it is not, and therefore as yet you have not per- formed what you require. For if to fct down fuch a Propolition, wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be neceflary to Salvation, will ferve you inftead of a Catalogue, you fhall have Catalogues enough. As, we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe. There's one Catalogue. We are obliged under pain of damnation , to believe all, whereof we may be fufEciently afhVed, that Chrift taught it his Apoftles, his Apoftles the Church. There's another. We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word, and all contained in it to be true. There's a third. If thefe generalities will not fatisfie you, but you will be importuning us to tell you m particular, what they are which Chi ill taught his Apoftles, and his Apoftles the Church, what points are contained in Gods Word ; Then I befeech you do us reafon, and give us a particular and exacl Inventory of all your Church Propofals, without leaving out, or adding any, iiich a one which ail the Doctors of your Church will fubferibe to, and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals, I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Bankrupts. Cc i 54. BefiJes iy& Taints rightly difiinguijlied 54. Befides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue (as you call it,) another main fault we find with it, that it is extreamly ambiguous ; and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds, give me leave to propofe fome Qiiefti- ons to you concerning it. I would know therefore, whe- ther by believing, you mean explicitely or implicitely ? If you mean implicitely, I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely, or no ? Whether any one point or points befides this, be under the fame penalty, to be believed explicitely, or no ? And if any , what they be ? I would know what you efteem the Propofals of the Catholick Vifible Church? In particular, whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra, that is, with an in- tent to oblige all Chriftians by it, be a fufficient and an obliging propofal ? Whether men without danger of damnation may examine fuch a Decree, and if they think they have juft caufe, refute to obey it ? Whether the Decree of a Council, without the Popes confirmation, be fuch an obliging Propofal, or no ? Whether it be fb in cafe there be no Pope, or in cafe it be doubtful who is Pope ? Whether the Decree of a general Council confirmed by the Pope, be fuch a Propofal, and whether he be an Heretick that thinks other wife ? Whether the Decree of a particular Council confirmed by the Pope, be fuch a Propofal ? Whether the General uncondemned pra&ice of the Church for fbme Ages be fuch a fuffici- ent Propofition ? Whether the content of the moft emi- nent Fathers of any Age, agreeing in the affirmation of any Do&rine, not contradicted by any of their Contem- poraries, be a fufficient Propofition? Whether the Fa- thers teirifying fuch or fuch a DocStrine or Pra&ice to be Tradition, or to be the Do&nne or Pra&ice of the Church, be a fufficient aflurance that it is fb ? Whether- we be bound under pain of damnation, to believe every Text of the Vulgar Bible, now Authorized by the Roman Church, to be the true Tranflation of the Originals of the Prophets, and Evangelifts, and Apoftles, without any the leaft alteration ? Whether they that lived when the v Bible tnto Fundamental and not Fundamental. 197 Bible of Sixtus was fet forth, were bound under pain of damnation to believe the fame of that ? And if not of that, of what Bible they were bound to believe it? Whether the Catholick Vifible Church be alwaies that Society of Chriftians which adheres to the Bifhop of Rome ? Whether every Chnftian, that hath ability and opportunity, be not bound to endeavour to know Expli- citly the Propofals of the Church ? Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity, will not fave him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves fome Doctrine of the Church, not knowing it to be lo ; and Actually believes fbme damnable Herefie,as that God has the ihape of a man? Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church, when his Prieit or Ghoft- ly Father allures him it is lo ? Whether his Ghoftly Fa- ther may not Err in telling him (b, and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation, to believe an Error ? Whether he be bound to believe fuch a thing "de- fined, when a number of Priefts, perhaps Ten or Twen- ty tell him it is ib ? And what aflurance he can have, that they neither Err, nor deceive him in this matter ? Why Implicite Faith in Chnft, or the Scriptures mould not fuffice for a mans Salvation, as well as implicite Faith in the Church ? Whether when you fay, Whatfce- 'ver the Church propofeth, you mean all that eve; fhe pro- pofed, or that only which fhenow propofeth; and whe- ther fhe now propofeth all that ever me did propole ? Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were fuf- ficiently declared to the Church to be fb, and propofed as fuch by the Apoftles ? And if not, from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards ? If fo, whether all men ever fince the Apoftles time, were bound un- der pain of damnation to believe the Epiftle of S. James, and the Epiftle to the Hebrews to be Canonical ; at leait, not to disbelieve it, and believe the contrary ? Laftly, why it is not lufficient for any mans Salvation to ufethe belt means he can to inform his Confcience, and to fol- low the direction of it ? To all thefe demands when you have given fair and ingenious anfwers, you iliall hear further from me. ' 55, Ad l^Q, Points rightly difimguifled $5. Ad 5- 20.] At the firft entrance into this Parag. from our own Do£fcrme, That the Church cannot Err in Points necef- fary, it is concluded if we are wife, we muft for fake it in nothmgy leaf; w should forfake it in fomethingnecejfary. To which I an- fwer, Firft, that the fuppofition as you underftand it, is falfly impofed upon us, and as we underftand it will do you no fervice. For when we fay, that there fhall be a Church alwaiesy fomewhere or other, unerring in Fundamentals , our meaning is but this, that there flail be alwaies a Church, to the very being whereof it is repugnant that it fhouid Err in Fundamentals ; for if it fhouid do fo, it would want the very eilence of a Church, and therefore ceafe to be a Church. But we never annexed this priviledg to any one Church of any one Denomination, as the Greek or the Roman Church : which if we had done, and fet up fbme fetled certain Society of Chriftians, diftinguifhable from all others by adhering to fiich a Bifhop for our Guide in Fundamentals, then indeed, and then only might you with ibme colour, though with no certainty, have concluded that we could not in Wifdom, forfake this Church in any point , for fear of for fa king it in a neceffa- ry point. But now that we fay not this of any one de- terminate Church, which alone can perform the Office of Guide or Dire&or, but indefinitely of the Church, meaning no more but this, That there flail be alwaies m fame place or other, fome Church that Errs not in Fundamen- tals ; will you conclude from hence, that we cannot in Wifdom forfake this or that,the Roman or the Greek Church., for fear of Erring in Fundamentals? 56. Yea, but you may fay (for I will make the beft I can of all your Arguments, ) That this Church thus un- erring in Fundamentals , when Luther arofey was by our con- feffion the Roman ; and therefore we ought not in Wifdom to have departed from it in any thing. I anfwer : Firft, that we confefs no fuch thing, that the Church of Rome was then this Church, but only a Part of it, and that the moft corrupted and molt incorrigible. Secondly, that if by adhering to the Church, we could have been thus farfecured, this Argument hadfomefhewofreafbn. But feeing into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 1 99 feeing we are not warranted thus much by any pnviledg of that Church, that fhe cannot Err Fundamentally, bat only from Scripture, which affures us that fhe doth Err very heinoufly , colled our hope, that the Truths me retains and the practice of them, may prove an Anti- dote to her, againft the Errors which (he maintains in fiich Perfons, as in fimplicity of Heart follow this A lom; we fhouli then do againft: the light of our Conici- ence, and Co iin damnably if we mould not abandon the profeffion of her Errors though not Fundamental Nei- ther can we thus conclude, we may faielv hold with the Church of Rome in all her points, for me cannot Err damnably ; For this is falfe, fhe may, though perhaps ihe does not : But rather thus, Thefe points of Chriffrankv, which have in them the nature of Antidotes againft the Poyfbn of all Sins and Errors, the Church of Rome , though other wife much corrupted, ftill retains ; there- fore we hope Ihe Errs not Fundamentally, but ftill re- mains a Part of the Church. But this can be no warrant to us to think with her in. all things: feeing the very tame Scripture, which puts us in hope me Errs not Fun- damentally, allures us that in many things, and thole of great moment (he Errs very grevioufly. And thefe Errors though to them that believe them, we hope they will not be pernitious, yet the profeffing of them againft Confcience, could not but bring us to certain damnation. As for the fear of departing from fome Fundamental Truths withal, -while we depart from her Errors, Happily it might work upon us, if adhering to her might fecure us from itj and if nothing elfe could : But both thefe are falfe. For firft, adhering to her in all things cannot fecure us from erring in Fundamentals : Becaufe though de fach we hope fhe docs not Err, yet we know no priviledges fhe has, but fhe may Err in them her felf : and there- fore we had need have better fecurity hereof than her bare Authority. Then fecondly, without dependence on her at all, we may be fecured that we do not Err Fun- damentally ; I mean by believing all thofe things^ plainly fet down in Scripture, wherein all things, neceihry, and molt 2 co Points rightly diftrnguiflied moll things profitable are plainly delivered. Suppofe I were Travelling to London, and knew two ways thither, the one very fafe and convenient , the other very in- convenient, and dangerous, but yet a way to London : and that I overtook a Pailenger on the way, who him- felf believed, and would fain perfwade me, there was no other way but the worfe, and would perfwade me to accompany him in it, becaufe I confeli'ed his way, though very inconvenient, yet a way; ib that going that way we could not fail of our Journies end> by the confent of both Parties : but he believed,^ my way to be none at all; and therefore I might juftly fear, left out of a deiire of leaving the worft way, I left the true, and the only way : If now I mould not be more (ecure upon my own know- ledge, than frighted by this fallacity, would you not beg me for a Fool ? Juft fb might you think df us, if we would be flighted out of our own knowledge by this bugbear. For the only and the main reafon why we be- lieve you not to Err in Fundamentals, is your holding the Doctrines of Faith in Chrifi and Repentance: which know- ing we hold as well as you, notwithstanding our depar- ture from you, we muft needs know that we not Err in Fundamentals, as well as we know that you do not Err in fbme Fundamentals, and therefore cannot poffibly fear the contrary. Yet let us be more liberal to you, and grant that which can never be proved, that God had laid in plain terms, The Church of Rome frail ne'ver defiroy the Foundation, but withal had faid, that it might and would lay much Hay and Stubble upon it ; That you ihould never hold any Error defrru£hve of Salvation, but yet many that were prejudicial to Edification : I demand, might we have difpenfed with our f elves in the -believing and profefiingthefe Errors in regard of the fmalnels of them? Or had it not been a damnable im to do fb, though the Errors in themfelves were not damnable ? Had we not had as plain Direction to depart from you in fbme things profitable, as to adhere to you in things necellary ? In the beginning of your Book, when it was for your purpoie to have it lb, the greatnefs or fmalnefs of the into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 10 r the matter was not confiderable, the Evidence of die Re- velation was all in all. But here we muft err with you in (hull things, for fear of looling your direction in greater : and for fear of departing too far from you, not go from you at all , even where we fee plainly that you have de- parted from the Truth. >-. Beyond all this, I fay., that this which you fay in jvijdom we are t<)doy is not only unlawful, but, if we will proceed according to reafon, impoflible. I mean to adhere to you in all things, having no other ground for it, but be- caufe you are (as we will now fuppofe) Infallible in fbmc things, that is, in Fundamentals. For, whether by skill in Architecture a large ftruclure may be fupported by a nar- row foundation, I know not; but fure I am, in reafon, no conclulion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded. And therefore if I confider what I do, and be perfwaded, that your infallibility, is but limited, and particular, and partial, my adherence upon this ground,, cannot poffibly be Abfblute and Univerfai and Total. I am confident, that mould I meet with fuch a man amongft you (as I am well aflur'd there be many) that would grant your Church Infallible only in Fundamentals, which what they are he knows not, and therefore upon this only reafbn adheres to you in all things: I fay that lam confi- dent, that it may be demonftrated, that fuch a man ad- heres to you., with a fiducial and certain ailent in no- thing. To make this clear ( becaufe at the firlt hearing it may feem ftrange) give me leave, good Sir, to fup- pofe you the man, and to propofe to you a few queftions, and to give for you fuch anfwers to them, as upon this ground you muft of neceffity give, were you prefent with me. Firft, fuppoiing you hold your Church Infallible in Fundamentals, obnoxious to Error* in other things, and that you know not what points are Fundamental, I de- mand, C. Why do you believe the Doctnn of Tranfub- itantiation ? K. becaufe the Church hath taught it, which is Infallible. C. What ? Infallible in all things, or only in Fundamentals? K. in Fundamentals only. C. Then in other points ihc may err? iC.fhe may. C.and do you know D d what 202 Points rightly difiinguifljed what Points a re Fundamental, what not ? £.No, and there- fore 1 believe her in all things, lead I mould disbelieve her in fundamentals. C. How know you then, whether this be a fundamental point or no? K. I know not. C. It may be then (for ought you know) an unfundamental point ? K. yes, it may be fo. C. And in theie you faid the Church may. err ? K. yes I did fo. C. Then poilibly it may err in this ? K. It may do fo. C. Then what certain- ty have you, that it does not err in it ? K. None at all, but upon this fuppofition, that this is a Fundamental. C. And this fuppofition you are uncertain of? K. Yes, I told you fo before. C. And therefore, you can have no certainty of that, which depends upon this uncertainty, laving only a fuppofitive certainty, if it be a Fundamental truth, which is in plain Englim to fay, you are certain it is true, if ic be both true and neceflary. Verily Sir, if you have no bet- ter Faith than this, you are no Catholick. K. good words I pray ! I am fo, and God willing will be fo. C. You mean, in outward profeffion and pra&ice, but in belief you are not, no more than a Vrotefiant is a Catholick. For every Vrotefiant yields fuch a kind of aflent to all the pro- pofals of the Church, for furely they believe them true, if they be Fundamental Truths. And therefore you muft either believe the Church Infallible in all her propofals , be they foundations, or be they fuperftru£tions, or elfeyou mult believe all Fundamental which fhe propofes, or elfe you are no Catholick. K. But I have been taught, that feeing I believed the Church Infallible in points iiecefi'ary, in wifdom I was to believe her in everything. C. That was a pretty plaufible inducement, to bring you hither, but now you are here, you muft go farther, and believe her Infal- lible in all things, or elfeyou were as good go back again, which will be a great difparagement to you, and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our part, and even with your own, the imputation of rafh- nefs and levity. You fee, I hope, by this time, that though a man did believe your Churchlnfallible in Funda- mentals; yet he has no reafon to do you the courtefie, of believing all her propofels ; nay if he be ignorant what ' "thefe into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 10 J thefe Fundamentals are, he has no certain ground to believe her, upon her Authority in any thing. And whereas you fay, it can be no imprudence to err with the Church; I fay, it may be very great imprudence, if the queflion be. Whe- ther we mould err with the prefent Church, or hold true with God Almighty. 60. Whereas you add, That that vifible Church which cannot err in Fundamental, propounds all her definitions without diftinttion to be believed under Anathema's: Anfi Again you beg the queftionj, fuppohng untruly, that there is, any that Vifible Church, I mean any Vifible Church of one De- nomination, which cannot err in points Fundamental. Se- condly, propofing definitions to be believed under Ana- thema's, is no good argument, that the Propounders con- ceive them felves infallible; but only, that they conceive the Do&rine they condemn is evidently damnable. A plain proof hereof is this, that particular Councils> nay particular men, have been very liberal of their Anathema's, which yet were never conceived infallible, either by others or them (elves. If any man mould now deny Chrift to be the Saviour of the world, or deny the Refurre&ion, I mould make no great fcruple of Anathematizing his Do&rine, and yet am very far from dreaming of Infalli- bility. 62. The erTe& of the next Argument is this, I cannot without grievous fin difobey the Churchy unlefi I know fie commands thofe things which are not in her power to com- mand: and how far this power extends ^none can better inform me than the Church. Therefore I am to obey , Jo far as the Church requires my obedience. I Anfwer, Firft, That neither hath the Catholick Church, but only a corrupt part of it decla- red her felf, nor required our obedience, in the points contefted among us. This therefore is falfely, and vainly fuppofed here by you, being one of the greater!: questions amongft us. Then Secondly, That God can better in- form us, what are the limits of the Churches power, than the Church her felf, that is, than the Roman Clergy, who being men iubjed: to the lame paffions with other men, why they iliould be thought the belt Judges in their own Dd 1 caufe, 2.04 Toints rightly diflingtujhed , catife, I do not well underftand ! But yet we oppofe a- gainfl them, no human decifive Judges, not any Sed or Perfon, but only God and his Word. And therefore it is in vain to fay, That in following her, you [hall be focner excufed, than in following any Seel or Man applying Scriptures againfi her Doctrine : In as much as we never went about to arrogate to our (elves that Infallibility or abfolute Authority, which we take away from you. But if you would have fpoken to the purpofe, you mould have (aid, that in following her you mould (boner have been cxculed, than in cleaving to the Scripture, and to God himlelf. 6v Whereas you (ay, The fearful examples of innumerable perfons, who for faking the Church, upon pretence of her errors, have failed even in fundamental points 3 ought to deter alt Chriflians from oppofing her in any one doBrine or practice ; This is, juft as ir you mould (ay, divers men have fallen into ScyUa, with going too far from Charybdis, be (ure therefore ye keep clofe to Charybdis : divers leaving pro- digality, have fallen into covetoufhefs, therefore be you conftant to prodigality; many have fallen from worship- ping God perver(ely and foolifhly, not to worlhip him at all, from worfhipping many Gods, to worlhip none ; this therefore ought to deter men, from leaving . Superfti- tion or Idolatry, for fear of falling into Atheiim and Im- piety. This is your counfel and Sophiftry : but God (ays clean contrary ; Take heed you fwerve not, either to the right hand or to the left : you mufi not do evil that good may come thereon ; therefore neither that you may avoid a greater evil, you muft not be obftinate in a certain error, for fear of an uncertain. What if (bme, forfaking the Church of Rome, have foHaken Fundamental Truths? Was this be- caufe they forfook the Church of Rome ? No (ure, this is non caufa pro caufa : for elfe all that have forfaken that Church mould have done (b, which we (ay they have not. But becaufe they went too far from her, the golden mean, the narrow way is hard to be found, and hard to be kept ; hard, but not impoffible: hard, but yet you muft not pleafe your (elf out of it, though you err on the right hand, though you offend on the milder part, for this is the into Fundamental and not Fundamental. th: only way chat leads toJife, and few there be that find ic. It is true, it we faidj there were no danger in being of the Rom.m Church, and there were danger in leaving it, it were madnefs to perfwade any man to leave it. But we protect and proclaim the contrary, and that we have very little hope of their Salvation, who either out of negli- gence in (eeking the truth, or unwillingnels to find it, live and die in the errors and impieties of that Church: £nd therefore cannot but conceive thofe fears to be mod foohih, and ridiculous, which perfwade men to beconitant in one way to hell, left happily if they leave it, they fliouM fall in- to another. 64. Qbj. Some Prcteftants, pretending to reform the Church, are come to affirm that [he periled for many Ages, which others cannot deny to he a Fundamental Error againjt the Article of the Creed , / believe the Catholick Church, and affirm the Donatifts erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa. To this I Anfwer, Firft, that the error of the Donatifts was not, that they held it poffible that fome, or many, or mod parts of Chriftendom, might fall away from Chriftia- nity, and that the Church may loofe much of- her ampli- tude, and be contracted to a narrow compais in compari- fon of her former extent ; which is proved not only pot- fible -but certain, by irrefragable experience. For who knows not, that Gentiltfm, and Mahumetifm, mans wick- ecfnels deferving it, and Gods providence permitting it, have prevailed to the utter extirpation of Chriflianity, upon far the greater part of the world ? And S. Auftm when he was out of the heat of Difputation, confefles the Militant Church to be like the Moon, fbmetimes increaling, and iometimes decreaf ing. This therefore was no error in the Donatifts , that they held it pollible, that the Church, from a larger extent, might be contradicted to a leller : Or that they held it poflible to be reduced to Africa ; (For why not to Africk then, as well as within thefe few ages, you pretend it was to Furore ?) But their error was, that they held de fa ffo,this was done whe n they had no juii ground or reafbn to do fb ; and (bupon a vain pretence which they could not juftity, (eparated themfelves from the communion of all 1°? 4o4 Points rightly diftinguified all other .parts of the Church : and that they required itas a neceftary condition to make a man a member of the Church, that he mould be of their Communion, and divide himfelf from all other Communions from which they were divided: which was a condition both unneceflary and un- lawful to be required, and therefore the exacting of it was directly oppofite to the Churches Catholicifm ; in the ve- ry fame nature with their Errors who required Orcumcifi- on, and the keeping of the Law of Mofes as neceflary to ialvation. For whofbever requires harder or heavier condi- tions of men,than God requires of them,he it is that is pro- perly an Enemy of the Churches Univerfality, by hindring either Men or Countries from adjoyningthemfelves to it ; which, were it not for thefe unneceflary and therefore un- lawful conditions, in probability would have made them members of it. And feeing the pretent Church of Rome perf wades men they were as good (for any hope of Salva- tion they have) not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholicks, believe nothing at all, as not to believe all which they impofe upon them: Be abfblutely out of the Churches Communion, as be out of their Communion,, or be in any other, whether they be not guilty of the fame crime, with the Donatifts and thofe Zelots of the Mofaical Law, I leave it to the judgment of thofe that underftand reafon! This is fufficicnt to fhew the vanity of this Argu- ment. But I add moreover, that you neither have named thofe Troteflants who held the Church to have perilhed for many ages; who perhaps held not the deftru&ion but the corruption of the Church; not that the true Church, but that the pure Church perimed: or rather that the Church perifhed not from its life and exifrence, but from its puri- ty and integrity, or perhaps from its fplendor and viiibihty. Neither have you proved by any one reafon, but only af- firmed it, to be a fundamental Error, to hold that the Church Militant may pqffibly be driven out of the world, and abolilheci for a time from the face of the earth. 69. Ad £. 2;. In all the(e Texts of Scripture, which are here alledged in this Lift Section of this Chapter, or in any one of rhem, or in any other, doth God fay clearly and plainly, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. I07 plainly, The Biflwp of Rome and that Society of CJmftians which adheres to him fliall be ever the infallible guide of Faith? You will confefs, I pre (lime, he doth not, and will pre- tend, it was not neccflary. Yet if the King mould tell us the Lord-Keeper mould judge fiich and fuch caufes, but mould either not tell us at all, or tell us but doubtfully who mould be Lord-Keeper, mould we be any thing the nearer for him to an end of contentions? Nay rather would not the diflentions about the Perfbn who it is, increafe con- tentions, rather than end them ? Juft fo it would have been, if God had appointed a Church to be Judge of Con- troverfies, and had not told us which was that Church. Seeing therefore God does nothing in vain, and feeing it had been in vain, to appoint a Judge of Controverlies, and not to tell us plainly who it is, and ieeing laftly, he hath not told us plainly, no not at all who it is, is it not evident he hath appointed none ? Obj. But (you will fay perhaps) if it be granted once, that fome Church of one denomination, k the Infallible guide of Faith, it will be no difficult thing to prove, that jours is the Church , feeing no other Church pretends to be fo. Anf Yes, the Primitive and the Apoftolick Church pretends to be fb. That aflures us, that the Jpirit was pro- mifed, and given to them, to lead them into all faving truth, that they might lead others. Obj. But that Church is not now in the world, and how then can it pretend to be the guide of Faith ? Anf. It is now in the world fufficiently, to be our guid^ : not by the perfbns of thofe men that were mem- bers of it, but by their Writings which do plainly teach us., what truth they were led into, and fo lead us into the fame truth. Obj. But thefe Writings, were the Writings of fome particular men, and not of the Church of thofe times : how then doth that Church guide its by thefe Writings ? Now thefe pla- ces jhew that a Church is to be our guide, therefore they cannot be fo avoided. Anf. If you regard the conception and pro- duction of thefe Writings, they were the Writings of par- ticular men: But if you regard the reception, and appro- bation of them, they may be well called the Writings of the Church, as having the atteiration of the Church, to have been written by thofe that were mfpired, and directed 2o8 Voints rightly difiinguifned directed by God. As a Statute, though penned by fbme one man, yet being ratified by the Parliament, is called the A&, not of that man, but of the Parliament. Ob). But the words feem clearly enough to prove, that the Church 3 the prefent Church of every Age, is Un'rver fatty infallible, Anf For mv part, I know I am as willing and delirous, that the Bifhop or Church of Rome ihould be ■ Infallible, (provided I might know it) as they are to be lb efteem- ed. But he that would not be deceived muft take heed, that he take not his defire that a thing mould be Co, for a reafon that it is fo. For if you look upon Scripture, through fuch Spectacles as thefe, they will appear to you, of what colour pleaies your fmcies beft : and will feem to fay, not what they do fay, but what you would have them. As fome fav the Manna, wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wildernefs, had in every mans mouth, that very taft which was mod agreeable to his palate. For my part I profefs, I have confidered them a thou- fand times, and have looked upon them (as they fay,) on both lides, and yet to me they feem to fay no fuch matter. 70. Not the Firft, Mat. 1 6: 1 8.) For the Church may err, and jet the gates of Hell not prevail again ft her. It may err j and yet continue ftill a true Church, and bring forth ChiU dren unto God, and fend Souls to Heaven. And there* fore this can do you no fervice, without the plain begging of the point in Queftion. Viz,. That every Error is one of the gates of Hell. Which we abfblutely deny, and therefore, you are not to fuppofe, but to prove it. Neither is our denial without reafon. For feeing you do, and muft grant, that a particular Church may hold fbme error, and yet be ftill a true member of the Church : why may not the Univerfal Church, hold the fame error, and yet remain the true Univerfal ? 71. Not the Second or Third. (Join 14. 16, 17. John 16. ' 3 .) For the Jpirit of Truth, may be with a Man, or a Church for ever, and teach him all Truth: And yet he may fall into fbme error, if this, all, be not fimply all, but all of fbme kind. Secondly, into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 107 Secondly, he may fall into fbme Error, even contra- ry to the truth which is taught him , if it be taught him only fufficiently, and net irrefifiibly, (b that he may learn it if he will, not fo that he mult and mall, whether he will or no. Now who can aflertain me, that the Spirits teaching is not of this nature ? Or how can you poflibly reconcile it, with your Dodfcrine of free-will in believing, if it be not of this nature ? Befides, the word in the Original is ofnytmi, which fi^nifies, to be a guide and dire&or only, not to compel or neceffitate. Who knows not, that a guide may let you in the right way, and you may either negligently miftake, or willingly leave it ? And to what purpofe doth God conplam fb often, and fo earneftly of fbme, that had eyes to fee and would not fee, that flopped their Ears, and do fed their Eyesy left they flwuld hear and fee ? Of others that would not under ji and, left they Jhould do good : that the Light finned t and the Darknefs comprehended it not : That he came unto his own, and his own received him not : That light came into the World, and Men loved Darknefs more than Light : To what purpofe fljould he wonder, fo few believed his re- port, and that to fo few his Arm was revealed : And that # when he comes, he (hould find no Faith upon Earth ; If his outward teaching were not of this nature, that it might be followed, and might be refifted ? And if it be, then God may teach, and the Church not learn : God may lead, and the Church be refra&ory and not follow. And in- deed, who can doubt, that hath not his Eyes vailed wi:h prejudice, that God hath taught the Church of Rome plain enough in the Epiitle to the Corinthians, that all things in the Church are to be done for edification, and that, in any publick Prayers, or Thanks- givings, or Hymns, or Leflbns of lnftruction, to ufe a Language, which the ^YiW^nzs generally underhand not, is not ror editication ? Though the Church of Rome will not learn this, for fear of confefling an Error, and lo overthrowing Authority, yet the time will come, when it mail appear, that not only by fenpture, they were taught this iu, entiy, and commanded to believe, but by rcafbn and E e com- no Points rightly difiinguifhed common fenfe. And fb for the Communion, in both kinds, who can denv but they are taught it by our Sa- viour John 6. in thefe Words, according to mofl: of your own expcfitions, Unlefs you Eat the Flejh of the Son of Man, and Drink his Blood 3 you have no Life in you. (If our Saviour {peak there of the Sacrament, as to them he does, becaufe they conceive he does Co.) Though they may pretend, that receiving in one kind, they receive the Blood together with the Body, yet they can with no Face pretend that they drink it : And fb obey not our Saviours injundion according to the letter, which yet they frofefs is literally , always to he obeyed \ unlefs fome impiety y or fome ab fur dity force its to the contrary : and they are not yet arrived to that impudence to pretend, that either there is impiety or abfurdity in receiving the Com- munion in both kinds. This therefore they if not others, are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place. But by S. Paul all without exception, when he {ays, Let a man examine himfelf and fo let him Eat of this Bread and Drink of this Chalice. This (a Man) that is to examine him- felf, is every man> that can do it : as is confefied on all hands. And therefore it is all one, as if he had {aid, let every man examine himfelf, and fo let him Eat of this Bread \ and Drink of this Cup. They which acknowledg Saint Pauls Epiftes, and Saint Johns Gofpel to be the Word of God, one would think mould not deny, but that they are taught thefe two Do&rines plain enough. Yet we fee they neither do, nor will learn them. I con- clude therefore, that the Spirit may very well teach the Church, and yet the Church fall into and continue in Error, by not regarding what ihe is taught by the Spirit. 71. But all this I have fpoken upon a fuppolition only, and mewed unto you, that though thefe promifes, had been made unto the pre lent Church of every Age (I might have laid though they had been to the Church of Rome byname, ) yet no certainty of herUni- verfal Infallibility could be built upon them. But the plain truth is, that thefe Promifes are vainly arrogated by you, and were never made to you,, but to the Apo- ftles into Fundamental and not Fundamental 2, \ \ files only. I pray deal ingenuoufly and tell me, who were they of whom our Saviour fays, Tbefe things have I jpoken unto you} being prefent with you. c. 14. 2 $. But the comforter, fliall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatfoever I have told you v. 26 ? Who are they to whom he fays, I go away and come aga'm unto you ; and I have told you btfore it come to pafs : V. 28. 29, Tou have been with me from the beginning : c. if. v. 27 ? And again,, thefe things I have told you, that when the time fhall come, you may remember that I told you of them : and thefe things I f aid not to you at the beginning, becaufe I was with you, c.1 6. 4. And becaufe J [aid thefe things unto youy forrow hath filled your Hearts, v. 6 ? Laftly, who are they of whom he faith, v. 12. I have yet many things to fay un- to you, but ye cannot bear them now ? Do not all thefe cir- cumftances appropriate this whole difcourfe of our Sa- viour to his Difciples, that were then with him, and con- fequently, reftrain the Promifes of the Spirit of truth, which was to lead them into all truth, to their Perfbns on- ly ? And feeing it is fb, is it not an impertinent arrogance and prefumption, for you to lay claim unto them, in the behalf of your Church ? Had Chnft been prefent with your Church ? Did the Comforter bring thefe things to the Remembrance of your Church, which Chnft had before taught and fhe had forgotten ? Was Chnft then departing from your Church ? And did he tell of his departure before it came to pals ? Was your Church with him from the beginning ? Was your Church filled with forrow, upon the mentioning of Chrifts departure ? Or lafrly, did he, or could he have faid to your Church, which then was not extant, / have yet many things to fay unto you, but ye cannot bear them now ? as he fpeaks in the 1 3. verj. immediately before the words by you quoted. And then goes on, Howbeit when the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth. Is it not the fame Tou he fpeaks to, in the 1;. verf. and that he fpeaks to in the 14 ? And is it not apparent to any one that has but half an Eye, that in the 13. he ipeaks only to them that then were with hun ? Befides in the very Text by you Ee 2 alledg- 2I2 Voints rightly diftingmfied alledged, there are things promifed, which your Church cannot with any modefty pretend to. For there it is faid, the Spirit of Truth, not only will guide you into all Truths but alfb will fixw you things to come. Now your Church (for ought I could ever underftand) does not fo much as pretend to the Spirit of Propheiie, and knowledge of future events : And therefore hath as little caufe to pre- tend to the former promife, of being led by the Spirit in- to all truth. And this is the Reafbn, why both You in this place, and generally, your writers of Controversies, when they entreat of this Argument, cite this Text per- petually by halfs, there being in the latter part of it, a clear, and convincing Demonftration, that you have no- thing to do with the former. Unlefs you will fay, which which is mod ridiculous , that when our Saviour faid, He will teach you ; &c. and he will (Joew you, &c. He meant one You in the former claufe, and another You in the latter. 73. Obj. But this is to confine Gods Spirit to the Apoftles only, or to the Difciples, that then were prefent with him : which is direBly contrary to many places of Scripture. Anf. I confefs, that to confine the Spirit of God to thofe that were then prefent with Chrift is againft Scripture. But I hope it is eafie to conceive a difference, between con- fining the Spirit of God to them : and confining the Pro- wifes made in this place to them. God may do many things which he does not Promife at all : much more, which he does not promife in fuch or fuch a place. 74. Obj. But it is promifed in the 14. Chap, that this Spirit ftall abide with them for ever : Now they in their perfons were not to abide for ever ; and therefore the Spirit could not abide with them, in their Perfons for ever, feeing the coexifience of two things, fuppofes ofneceffity, the exigence of either. There- fore the promife was not made to them only in their Perfons, but by them to the Church, which was to abide for ever. Anf Your Concluiion is, not to them only , but your Rea- fbn concludes, either nothing at all, or that this Promife of abiding with them for ever, was not made to their Perfons at. all ; or if it were, that it was not performed. Or if you will not fay (as I hope you will not) that it was not into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 21 3 not performed, nor that it was not made to their Perfbns at all; then muft you grant, that the Word for ever, is here ufed in a fenfe reftrained, and accommodated to the fubje£t here entreated of; and that it fignifies, not Eternal- ly, without end of time, but perpetually without interrup- tion, for the time of their lives. So that the force, and fenfe of the Words is, that they mould never want the Spirits affiftance, in the performance of their function : And that the Spirit would not fas Chirft was to do,) ftay with them for a time,and afterwards leave them,but would abide with them, if they kept their ftation, unto the ve- ry end of their lives, which is mans for ever. Neither is this ufe of the word, for ever, any thing ftrange, either in our ordinary fpeech, wherein we ufe to fay, this is mine for ever, this ihall be yours for ever, without ever dreaming of the Eternity, either of the thing or Perfbns. And then in Scripture, it not only will bear, but requires this fenfe very frequently, as Exod. 11.6. Deut.i$. 17. his Mafier fliall bore his Ear through with an Awl , and he fljaH jerve him for ever. Pfal. $2. 9. I wiU fraife thee for ever. Pfal. 61. 4. 1 will abide in thy Tahernacle for ever, Pfal. 1 1 9. 1 1 1. Thy Teftimonies have I taken as mine Heritage for ever : and laftly in the Epiftle to Philemon, He therefore departed from thee for a timei that thoujhouldeft receive him for ever. 75. And thus, I prefume, I have mewed fufficiently, that this for ever, hinders not, but that the promife may be appropriated to the Apoftles, as by many other circum- ftances I have evinced it muft be. But what now, if the place produced by you, as a main pillar of your Churches Infallibility, prove upon Tryal, an Engine to batter and overthrow it, at leaft, (which is all one to my purpofe) to take away all poffibility of our aflurance of it ? This will feem flrange news to you at firft hearing, and not far from a prodigy. And I confefs, as you here in this place, and generally all your Writers of Contro- veriie, by whom this Text is urged, order the matter, it is very much difabled, to do any fervice againft you in this queftion. For with a bold facnledg, and horrible im* piety^ 1^| Points rightly JifiinguiJhtA piety, fbmewhat like Procruftes his cruelty, you perpetu- ally cut off the Head and Foot, the beginning and end of it; and prefenting to your confidents, who dually read no more of the Bible, than is alledged by you, on- ly thefe words, I will ask ?ny Father , and he flail give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, conceal in the mean time, the words before, and the words after ; that fo, the promile of Gods Spirit, may feem to be abfblute , whereas it is indeed moft clearly aud exprefly conditional : being both in the words before, reftrained to thole only, that love God and keep his commandments : and in the words after, flatly de- nied to all, whom the Scriptures ftile by the name of the World, that is, as the very Antithesis give us plainly to underftand, to all wicked and worldly men. Behold the place entire, as it is fee down in your own Bible. If ye love me keep my Commandments , and I will ask my Father, and he flail give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the ftirit of the Truth, whom the. World cannot receive. Now from the place there reftor- ed and vindicated from your mutilation, thus I argue againft your pretence. We can have no certainty of the Infallibility of your Church, but upon this fupofiti- on, that your Topes are infallible in confirming the De- crees of General Councils : we can have no certainty hereof, but upon this fuppofition, that the Spirit of truth is promifed to him, for his dire&ion in this work. And of this again we can have no certainty , but upon fup- pofal, that he performs the condition, whereunto the promile of the Spirit of truth is exprefly limited, viz, That he love God and keep his Commandments ; and of this finally, not knowing the Popes Heart, we can have no certainty at all; therefore from the firft to the lafl, we can have no certainty at all of your Churches Infallibi- bility. This is my firft Argument : From this place ano- ther follows, which will charge you as home as the for- mer. If many of the Roman See, were fuch men as could not receive trie Spirit of Truth, even men of the World, that is Worldly, Wicked, Carnal, Diabolical men, then the into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 21 y the Spirit of Truth, is not here pro mi fed, but flatly de- nied them : and confequently we can have no certainty, neither of the Decrees of Councils, which thefe Popes confirm, nor of the Churches Infallibility, which is guid- ed by thefe Decrees : But many of the Roman See, even by the confeffion of the molt zealous Defenders of it, were fuch men : therefore the Spirit of truth is not here promifed but denyed them, and confequently we can have no certainty, neither of the Decrees which they confirm,^ nor of the Churches Infallibility, which guides her (elf by thefe Decrees. 76. You may take as much time as you think fit, to anfwer thefe Arguments. In the mean while I proceed to the confederation of the next Text alledged for this purpofe by you : out of S. Paul 1 . Epiftle to Timothy : cap. 3. 15. where he faith, as you fay the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth, But the truth is you are fbmewhatto bold with S. Paul. For he fays not in formal terms, what you make him fay, the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth, neither is it certain that he means fb : for it is neither impellible nor improbable, thatthe words the Pillar andGo^nd of truth, may have reference not to the Church, but to Timothy, the fenfe of the place that thou maieft know how to behave thy f elf , as a Pillar and ground of truth, 'in tie Church of God, which is the houfe of the living God, which expofition offers no violence at all to the words, but on- ly fuppofes an Ellipfis of the Particle &<> in the Greek very ordinary. Neither wants it fbme likelihood, that S. Paul comparing the Church to a Houfe, fhould here exhort Timothy, to carry himfelf, as a Pillar in that Houfe fhould do, according as he had given other Principal men in the Church, the name of Pillars ; rather than, having called the Church a Houje, to call it prefently a Pillar ; which may feem fbme what heterogeneous. Yet if you will needs have S. Paul refer this not to Timothy but the Church, I will not contend about it any farther, than to fay, poffibly it may be other wife. But then fe- condly, I am to put you in mind, that the Church which S. Paul here fpeaks of, was that in which Timothy con- verfe-d Il6 . Points rightly difiinguifljed verted, and that was a Particular Church, and not the Raman ; and fiich you will not have to be Univerfally Infallible. 77. Thirdly , if we grant you out of Courtefie (Tor nothing can enforce us to it) that he both fpeaks of the Univerfal Church, and fays this of it, then I am to re- member you, that many Attributes in Scripture are not Notes of Performance but of Duty, and teach us not what the thing or Perfbn is of necefEty, but what it fhould be. Ta are the Salt of the Earth, faid our Saviour to his Difciples : not that this quality was infeparable from their Perfbns, but becaufe it was their Office to be fb. For if they muft have been fb of neceffity, and could not have been otherwife, in vain had he put them in fear of that which follows, If the Salt hath loft his favour 9 wherewith foall it be Salted ? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but . to be call forth, and to be trodden under 'Foot. So the Church may be by Duty, the Pillar and Ground, that is, the Teacher of Truth, of all truth, not only necefla- ry but profitable to Salvation ; and yet fhe may neglecl: and violate this Duty, and be in fad, the teacher of fbme Error. 78. Fourthly and laftly, if we deal moft liberally with you, and grant that the Apoftle here fpe.iks of the Ca- tholick Church, calls it the Fillar and ground of Truth, and that not only becaufe it Ihould , but becaufe it always Jhall and will be fb , „yet after all this, you have done nothing ; your Bridge is too fhort,^ to bring you to the Bank where you would be, unlefs you can mew that by truth here, is certainly meant, not only all ?ieceffary to Salvation, but all that is profitable, abfblutely and fiwplv All. For that the true Church alwaies mail be the main- tainor and teacher of all neceflary truth, you know we grant and muft grant, for it is of the cilence of the Church to be fb, and any company of Men were no more a Church without it, than any thing can be a Man, and not be reafonable. But as a Man may be ftill a Man, though he want a Hand or an Eye, which vet are profitable parts, fo the Church may be ftill a Church into Fundamental and not Fundamwai. Churehj though it be defedive in feme profitable truth. And as a Man may be a Man, that has fbme Boyls and Botches on his Body, Co the Church may be the Churchy though it have many corruptions both in Doclxine and pra&ice . 79. And thus you fee we are at liberty from the former places ; having mewed that the {qtiCg of them, either mult or may be fuciv as will do your Caufe no fervice. But the laft you iuppoie, will be a Gordian knot,, and ties us faft enough: The words are, Efb. 4 11, 12,15. He gave fame Apojlles, and fame Prophet s, &C. to the consummation of Saint ss to the work of the Mmifiry} &c. Until -we all meet into the U- nity of Faith, &c. That we be not hereafter Children, water- ing and carried up and down with every wind of Doclrme, Out of which words, this is the only argument which you colled, or I can collect for you. There is no means to conferve unity of Faith, againft every wind of Doctrine, unlefs it be a Church univerfally Infallible. But it is im- pious to fay there is no means to conferve unity of Faith againft every wind of Doctrine : Therefore there malt be a Church univerfally Infallible. Whereunto I anfwer, that your major is lb far from being confirmed, that it is plainly confuted, by the place alledged. For that tells us of another means for this purpofe,to wit, the Apofiles, and Prophets, and Evangelifis, andPaftors, and Dotfors, which Chrift gave upon his Afceniion, and that their confumma- ting the Saints, doing the work of the Miniftry, and Edifying the body ofChrifi, was the means to bring thofe (which are there Ipoken of,be they who they will,) to the unity of Faith > and to perfection in Chrift, that they might not be waver mo-, and carried about, with every wind offalfe Do Urine. Now the Apoitles, and Prophets, and Evangelifts, and Pallors, and Doctors, are not the prefent Church ; therefore the Church is not the only means for this end, nor that which is here fpoken of. 80. Peradventure by, he gave, you conceive, is to be un- der ftood, he promifed that he would give unto the worlds t:: :. But what reafon have you for tins conceit? Can you lhew that the word, %&>**, ruth this iigniricarion in other J f pLues, U1 li S Points- rightly dift ingulfed places, and that it muft have it in this place ? Or will not this interpretation drive you prefently to this blafphdmous abfurdity, that God hath not performed his promife? Un- lets you will fay, which for fhame I think you will not, that you have now, and in all Ages fince Chrift have had Apoftles, and Prophets, and Evangeltfts: for as for Pa- ftoi s, and Do&ors alone, they will not ferve the turn. For if God promifed to give all thefe, then you muft fay he hath given all, or elfe that he hath broke his promife. Neither may you pretend, that the Vaftors and Dolors wire the fame with the Apoftles , and Prophets, and Evangelifis, and therefore having Pafiors and Doctors, you have all. For it is apparent, that by thefe names, are denoted feveral Odeisof men, clearly diftinguimed and diverfified by the Onginal Text; but much more plainly by your own Tranflations, for fo you read it, Jome Apoftles, and Jome Prophets, and other jome Evangelifts, and other Jome Pafiors and Debtors : and yet more plainly in the parallel place, i Cor. 1 2. to which we are referred by your Vulgar Tran- flation, Gcd hath Jet fome in the Church, fir ft Apoftles, fecon- darily Prcphets, thirdly Teachers, therefore this fubtei fuge is flopped againft you. Obj. But how can they, which di- ed in the firjt Age, keep its in Unity, and guard its from Error , that live now, perhaps in the laft ? This Jeems to be all one, as if a Man Jhoula fay , /^Alexander, or Julius Ca?far Jhould quiet a mutiny in the King of Spains Army. AnJ. I hope you will grant, tnat Hippocrates, and Galen, and Euclid, and A- nftotle, and Saluft, and Ca:far, and Livie, were dead ma- ny Ages fince ; and yet that we are now prefer ved from Error by them, in a great part of Phyfick, of Geometry, cf Loj.ijk,of the Roman ftory.But what if thefe men had writ by divine Infpiration, and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they profefled, and writ them plainly and perfpicuoufly ? You would then have granted, I believe, that their works had been fiifficient to keep us from error, and fiom diflention in thefe matters. And why then ihould it be incongruous to fay, that the Apoftles, and Prophets, and Evangclifts, and Pafiors, and Dodors, which Chrift gave upon his Afcenfion, by their writings, which 'into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 1 i 9 which fome of them writ but all approved, are even now fufficient means, to conferve us in Unity of Faith, and guard us from Error? Efpecially feeing thefe writings are, by the confeffion of all parts, true and divine, and as we pretend and are ready to prove, contain a plain and per- fect Rule of Faith; and as the * Chiefeft of you acknow- * Perron, ledge, contain immediacy, all the Principal and Fundamental points of Chriftianity, referring us to the Church and Tradition only for fome minute particularities. But tell me I pray, the Bifhops that compofed the Decrees of the Council of Trent , and the Pope that confirmed them, are they means to conferve you in Unity, and keep you from Error, or are they not ? Peradventure you will fay, their Decrees are3 but not their Perfons : but you will not deny I hope, that you owe your unity, and freedom from Error, to the Perfons that made thefe Decrees : neither will you deny, that the writings which they have left behind them, are iufficient for this purpofe. And* why may not then the Apoftles writings b^ as fit for fuch a purpofe, as the Decrees of your Doclors ? Surely their intent in writ- ing was to conferve us in unity of Faith, and to keep us from Error, and we are fure God fpake in them ; but your Doctors from whence they are, we are not fb cer- tain. Was the Holy Ghoft then unwilling, or unable to dire<5t them fb, that their writings mould be fit and fuffici- ent to attain that end they aimed at in writing? For if he were both able and willing to do fo, then certainly he did do fb. And then their writings may be very fufficient means, if we would ufe them as we mould do, to prefer ve us in unity, in all necefTary points of Faith, and to guard us from all pernitious Error. 81. Ityetyoube not fatisfied, but will ftill pretend that, all tbeje words by you cited, Jeem clearly enough to prove , that the Church is Univerjally infallible, without 'which Uni- ty of Faith could not be conferred againft every wind ofDoclrin : I Anj. That to you, which will not underftand, that there can be any means to conferve the unity of Faith, but only chat which conferves your authority over the Faithful, it is no marvel that thefe words feem to prove, that the F f 2 Church { 2,20 Points rightly dijHnguijhed Church, nay that your Church is umverfally Infallible. But we that have no fuch end, no fiich dehres, but are willing to leave all men to their liberty, provided they will not improve it to a Tyranny over others, we find it no difficulty to difcern between dedit and prom ifit, he gave at bis Afcmfiori) and he promifed to the Worlds end. Befides, though you whom it concerns, may happily flatter your ielves, that you have not only Paftors, and Doctors, but Prophets, and Apoftles, and Evangelifts, and thofe diftind from the former ftill in your Church ; yet we that are diiinterefled perfbns, cannot butfmile at thefe ftrange ima- ginations. Laftly, though you are apt to think your ielves fuch neceffary inftruments for all good purpofes, and that nothing can be well done unlefs you do it ; that no unity or conftancy in Religion can be maintained, but inevitably Chriftendom muft fall to ruin, and confufiion, unlefs you fupport it : yet we that are indifferent and im- partial, and well content, that God mould give us his own favours, hy means of his own appointment, not of our choofing, can eafily colled out of thefe very words, that not the Infallibility of your, or of any Church, but the Apo files, and Prophets, and Evangelifts, &;c. which Chrifi gave upon his Afcenfwn, were dehgned by him, for the compafling all thefe excellent purpofes, by their preaching^ while they lived, and by their writings forever. And if they fail hereof, the Reafon is not any infufficiency or invalidity in the means, but the voluntary perverfhefs of the Subjects they have to deal with : who, if they would be them (elves, and be content that others mould be, m the choice of their Religion the fervants of God and not of men ; if they would allow, that the way to Heaven is no narrower now, than Chrift left it, his yoak no heavier than he made it; that the belief of no more difficulties, is required now to Salvation, than was in the Primitive Church; that no Error is in it felf deftru&ive, and exclufive from Salvation now, which was not then ; jfinftead of being zealous Vapifts, carneft Calvmifts , ri- gid Lutherans, they would become themfelves, and be content that others mould be plain and honeft Chriftians ; if into Fundamental and not Fundamental. iix if all men would believe the Scripture, and freeing them- felves from prejudice and paflion, would iincerely endea- vour to find the true Conk of it, and live according to it, and require no more of others, but to dofb ; nor denying their Communion to any that do fb, would fb order their publick fervice of God, that all which do lb may without fcruple, or hypocrilie, or proteftation againft any part of it, joyn with them in it : who does not fee that (feeing as we fuppofe here, and mall prove hereafter,) all neceflary Truths, are plainly and evidently fet down in Scripture, there would of neceffity be among all men, in all things neceflary, unity of Opinion ? And notwithstand- ing any other differences that are or could be, unity of Communion and Charity and mutual Toleration? By which means, all Schifm and Herefie, would be bamm- ed the World, and thofe wretched contentions which now rend and tear in pieces, not the Coat, but the Members and Bowels of Chrift, which mutual pride and Tyranny, and curfing, and killing, and damning, would fain make immortal, mould fpeedily receive a molt blefled Ca- taftrophe. But of this hereafter, when we fhall come to the queftion of Schifm, wherein I perfwade my felf , that I fhall plainly mew, that the mod vehe- ment accufers, are the g;eateit offenders, and that they are indeed at this time, the greateft Schifma- ticks, who make the way to Heaven narrower, the yoak of Chrift heavier, the differences of Faith greater, the con- ditions of Ecclefiaftical Communion harder, and ftri&er, than they were made at the beginning by Chrift and his Apoftles : they who talk of Unity, but aim at Tyranny^ and will have peace with none, but with Slaves and Vaflals. In the mean while, though I have fhewed how Unity of Faith, and Unity of Charity too, may be preferved with- out your Churches Infallibility, yet feeing you modeftly conclude from hence, not that your Church is, but only feems to be univerfally Infallible, meaning to your felf, of which you are a better judge than I : Therefore I willing- ly grant your conchfIon; and proceed, 86. As l.i\ Points rightly Jifiinguifhed 86. As for your pretence, That to find the meaning of thofe places, you confer divers Texts, you consult Originals ,you examin Translations, and ufe all the means by Protefiants ap- pointed, I have told you before, that all this is vain and hy- pocritical, if (as your manner and your do&rin is) you give not your felf liberty of judgment in the ufe of thefe means ; if you make not your (elves Judges of, but only Ad- vocates for the do&rinof your Church,refufing to fee what thefe means mew you, if it any way make againft the do- &rin of your Church, though it be as clear as the light at noon. Remove prejudice, even the ballance, and hold k even, make it indifferent to you which way you go to heaven, lb you go the true, which Religion be truefb you be of it, .then ufe the means and pray for Gods afliftance, and as fure as God is true, you mall be lead into all ne- ceflary Truth. 88. Whereas you fay, that it were great impiety toimagin that God, the lover ef Souls, hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all ether differences arifing about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occafion: I defire you to take heed, you commit not an impiety in making more impieties than Gods Commandments make. Certainly God is no way obliged either by his promife or his love to give us all things, that we may imagine would be convenient for us, as formerly I have proved at large. It is fufficient that he denies us nothing neceffary to Sal- vation. Dem non deficit in necejfariis,nec redundat infuperflu- js : So D. Stapleton, Bat that the ending of all Controver- sies , or having a certain means of ending them, is nece£ fary to Salvation, that yon have often faid and fiippofed, but never proved, though it be the main pillar of your whole difcourfe. So little care you take how flight your foundations are, (b your building make a fair fhow. And as little care, how you commit thofe faults your felf, which you condem in others.For you here charge them with great impiety, who imagine that God the lover of Souls hath left no infallible means to determine all differences arifing about the interpretation of Scripture, or upon any other occafion: And yet afterwards being demanded by D.Potter, why the Que- /lions Into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 12 ^ films between the J e fats and Dominicans remain undetermi- ned? You return him this crofs interrogatory, Who hath aJJUred you that the pint wherein thefe learned men differ, is 41 revealed Truth, or capable of definition, or is not rather by flam Scripture indeterminable, or by any Rule of Faith ? So then when you lay, it were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible means to decide all differences ; I may an- fwer, It feems you do not believe your felf. For in this controverfie, which is of as high coniequence as any can be, you feem to be doubtful whether there be any means to determin it. On the other fide, when you ask D. Pot- ter, who aJJured him that there is any means to determine this Controverfie ? I anfwer for him, that you have, in calling it a gre.i t impiety to imagine that there is not fome infallible means to decide this and all other differences arifing about the Inter* pretation of Scripture, or upon any other occafion. For what trick you can devife to fhew that this difference, between the Dominicans and Jefuits, which includes a difference about the fenfe of many Texts of Scripture, and many other matters of moment, was not included under this and all other differences, I cannot imagine. Yet if you can find out any, thus much at leaft we mall gain by it, that gem- ral ffeeches are not always to be under flood generally, but feme- times with exceptions and limitations. 89. But if there be any infallible means to decide all differences, I befeech you name them. Tou fay it is to ccn- fult and hear Gods Vifible Church with fubmiffive acknowledg- ment of her Infallibility. But fuppofe the difference be (as here it is) whether your Church be Infallible, what mail de- cide that? If you would fay (asyoufhould do) Scripture and Reafbn, then you forefee that you mould be forced to grant that thefe are fit means to decide this Contro- veriie, and therefore may be as fit to decide others. There* fore to avoid this, you run into amoft ridiculous abfurdi- ty, and tell us that this difference alfb, whether the Church be Infallible, as well as others,, mufl be agreed by a jnb- miffi-ve acknowledgment of the. Churches Infallibility. As if you mould have faid, My Brethren, I perceive this is a great contention amongfl you, whether the Roman Church be %%$ Voints rightly difiinguijlxd be Infallible ? If you will follow my advice, I will {hew you a ready .means to end it ; you mull firft agree that the Roman Church is Infallible, and then your contention whether the Rotnan Church be Infallible, will quickly be at an end. Verily a mod excellent advice, and moft compendious way of ending all Controverfies, even with- out troubling the Church to determine them ! For why mav not you lay in all other differences, as you have done in this ? Agree that the Pope is llipream head of the Church: That the fubftance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the body, and blood of Chnft : That the Communion is to be given to Lay-men but in one kind : That Pictures may be woiihipped : That Saints are to be invocated; and lb in the reft, and then your differences about the Popes Supremacy ,Tranfubftantiation,and all the reft will Ipeedily be ended. If you lay, the advice is good m this, but not in other cafes, I muft requeft you not to expect always, to be believed upon your word, but to Jhew us fbme reafbn, why any one thing, namely the Churches Infallibility, is fit to prove it felf; and any other thing, by name the Popes Supremacy, or Tranfubftantia- tion is not as fit ? Or if for jhame you will at length con- feis, that the Churches Infallibility is not fit to decide this difference, whether the Church be infallible, then you muft confers it is not fit to decide all : Unlefs you will Jay, it may be fit to decide all, and yet not fit to decide this, or pretend that this is not comprehended under all. Be- iides if vou grant that your Churches infallibility can- not poflibly be well grounded upon, or decided by it felf, then having profeffed bcrore, that there is no poffible means be fides this, for its to agree hereupon, I hope you will give me leave to conclude, that it is impoffible upon good ground for us to agree that the Roman Church is Infallible. For certainly light itielf, is not more clear than the evidence of this iyllogiim : If there be no other means to make men agree upon your Churches Infallibility, but only this, and this be no means, then it is limply impoffible for \r\cn upon good grounds to agree that your Church is In- fallible : ffitt there is (as vou have granted) no other pol: fible into Fundamental and not Fundamental. 125 fible means to make men agree hereupon, but only a fubmiffive acknowledgment of her Infallibility, And this is apparently no means ; Therefore it is fimply impoffible for men upon good grounds to agree that your Church is Infallible. 90. Laftly to the place of S. Aufim, 'wherein we are ad- vised to follow the way of Catholick Discipline y which from Chrifi him/elf by the Apofiles hath come down even to m, and from us jhall defcend to all pofierity : I anfwer, That the way which S. Aufiin (peaks of, and the way which you commend, being divers ways, and in many things clean contrary, we cannot poffibly follow them both ; and therefore for you to apply the fame words to them is a vain equivocation. Shew us any way, and do not fay, but prove it to have come from Chrifi and his Apofiles down to us ; and we are ready to follow it. Neither do we expec5t demonftration hereof, but fuch reafbns as may make this more probable than the contrary. But if you bring in things into your now Catholick Difcipline, which Chnftians in S. Auftins time held abominable, (as the Pi&uring of God, ) and which you muft confefi to have come into the Church Seven Hundred Years after Chrift : if you will bring in things, as you have done the half Communion, with a non obfiante, notwith- fianding Chrifi Inftitutian, and the practice of the Primitive Church were to the contrary : If you will do fuch things as thefe, and yet would have us believe, that your whole Religion came from Chrift and his Apoftles, tnis we con- ceive arequeft too unreafbnable for modeft men tomake4 or for wife Men to grant. Gg CHAR ii<3 The Creed contains all neceffary point s of meer Belief. CHAP. IV. The ANSWER to the Fourth CHAPTER. Wherein is Jhewed, that the Creed contains all neceffary joint* of meer Belief AD $. i, 2, }, 4, 5, 6. ] Concerning the Creeds con- taining the Fundamentals of Chriftiany, this is D. Potters aflertion, delivered in the 207. p. of his Book. The Creed of the Apofiles ( as it is explained in the latter Creeds of the Cat ho lick Church ) is efieemed a fufficient furn- mary or Catalogue of Fundamentals } by the befl learned Ro- manics and by Antiquity. 2. By Fundamentals he underftands not the Fundamental rules of good Life and AH "ton , (though every one of thefe is to be believed to come from God, and therefore vir- tually includes an Article of Faith;) but the Fundamen- tal Doclrines of Faith ; fuch, as though they have influence upon our lives, as every effential Do6trme of Chriftiani- nicy hath, yet we are commanded to believe them, and not to do them. The aflent of our underftandings is required to them, but no obedience fi om our wills. 3. But thefe fpeculative Do&rines again he diftingui- fhes out of Aquinas , Occham, and Camts and others, in- to two kinds : of the fitft are thofe which are the Objetfs of Faith , in3 and for themfelves, which by their own na- ture and Gods prime intention, are effential parts of that Gofpel : fiich as the Teachers in the Church, cannot with- out Mortal fin omit to teach the Learners : fuch as are in- trinlecal to the Covenant between God and Man ; and not only plainly revealed by God, and ib certain truths, but alfb commanded to be preacht to all men, and to be believed diftin&ly by all, and lb neceJJ'ary truths. Of the jfecond fort are Accidental, Circumftantial, Occafonal ob- jects of Faith ; Millions whereof there are in Holy Scri- pture ; fiich as are to be believed, not for themfelves, but The Creed contains all necejjary points of meer Belief. 1 1 but becaufe they are joyned with others, that are necef- fary to be believed, and delivered by the fame Authori* ty which delivered thefe. Such as we are not bound to know to be Divine Revelations, (Tor without any fault we may be Ignorant hereof, nay believe the contrary ; ) fuch as we are not bound to examine, whether or no they be Divine Revelations : fuch as Paftors are not bound to teach their Flock, nor their Flock bound to know and remember : no nor the Paftors themlelves to know them, or believe them, or not to disbelieve them abfblutely and always ; but then only when they do lee, and know them to be delivered in Scripture, as Divine Revelati- ons. 4. I fay when they do fb, and not only when they may do. For to lay an obligation upon us of believing, or not disbelieving any Verity, fufficient Revelation on Gods part, is not fufficient : For then leeing all the ex- urefs Verities of Scripture are either to all men, or at eaft to all learned men fufficiently revealed by God, it : hould be a damnable fin, in any learned men adually to disbelieve any one particular Hiftoncal verity contained in Scripture, or to believe the contradi&ion of it, though he knew it not to be there contained. For though he did not, yet he might have known it ; it being plainly reveal- ed by God, and this revelation being extant in fuch a Book, wherein he might have found it recorded, if with dilligence he had perufed it. To make therefore any points neceflary to be believed, it is rcquifite, that either we actually know them to be Divine Revelations : and thefe though they be not Articles of Faith, nor necefla- ry to be believed, in and for themlelves, yet indire&ly, and by accident, and by confequence, they are 16: The neceffity of believing them, being inforced upon us, by a neceffity of believing this Eflential, and Fun- damental Article of Faith, That all Divine Revelations are true, which to disbelieve, or not to believe, is for any Chriflian not only impious, but impoflible. Or elfe it is requifite that they be, Firft a&ually revealed by God. Secondly, commanded under pain of damnation, to be G g 1 particularly ai8 The Creed contains aB neceffary points of meet Belief. particularly known (I mean known to be Divine Revela- tions, ) and diftin&ly to be believed. And of this latter fort of fpeculative Divine Verities, D. Totter affirmed, that the Apofiles Creed was a Sufficient fummary : yet he affirmed it, not as his own opinion, but as the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers, and your own Doclors, And befides, he affirmed it not as abfolutely certain, but very probable. 5. In brief, all that he fays is this: It is very probable, that according to the judgment of the Roman Doclors, and the Ancient Fathers, the Apofiles Creed is to be efieemed a fufficient fummary of all thofe Doclrines which being meerly Cre- denda, and not Agenda, all men are ordinarily , under pain of Damnation, bound particularly to believe. 6. Now this ajjertion (you fay) is neither pertinent to the quefiion m hand, nor in it {elf true. Your Reafons to prove it impertinent, put into form and diverted of im pertinencies arc thefe. 1. Becaufe the quefiion ova snot, what points were necejfary to be explicitely believed, but what points were ne- cefiary not to be disbelieved after fufficient propofal. And there- fore to give a Catalogue of points, neceffary to be explicitely be- lieved is impertinent. 7. Secondly, becaufe Errors may be damnable, though the contrary truths be not of themjelves Fundamental ; as that Pontius Pilate was our Saviours Judge, is not in it felf a Fundamental truth, yet to believe the contrary were a dam- nable Error. And therefore to give a Catalogue of Truths in themfelvesFundamental, is no pertinent fatisfaclion to this demand, what Errors are damnable ? 8. Thirdly, becaufe if the Church be not Univerfally infal- lible, we cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed, which we mufi receive upon the Credit of the Church : and if the Church be Universally Infallible, it is damnable to oppofe her declaration in any thing, though not contained in the Creed. 9. Fourthly, Becauje not to believe the Articles of the Creed in the true fenfe is damnable, therefore it is frivolous to fay the Creed contains all Fundamentals , without Specifying in what jenfe the Articles of it are Fundamental. 1 o. Fifthly, becaufe the Apofiles Creed (as APotter him felf confejfes) was not a Sufficient Catalogue, till it was explained by The Creed contains all necejfary feints of meer Belief. 129 by the firfi Council; nor then until it was declared in the fecond, &C by occafion of emergent Herefies : Therefore now alfo as new Herefies may arife, it will need particular expla- nation, and fo is not yet, nor ever will be a compleat Catalogue of Fundamentals. 1 1 . Now to the firft of theft objections I fay : Firft, that your diftin&ion between points neceffary to be be- lieved, and neceflary not to be disbelieved, is more fub- til than found, a diftindion without a difference : There being no point neceflary to be believed, which is not neceflary not to be disbelieved : Nor no point to any man, at any time, in any circtim fiances neceflary not to be disbelieved, but it is to the fame man, at the fame time, in the fame circumftances, neceflary to be believed. Yet that which ( I believe ) you would have faid, 1 ac- knowledge true, that many points which are not necef- lary to be believed abfolutely, are yet neceflary to be be- lieved upon a fuppofition, that they are known to be re- vealed by God : that is, become then neceflary to be be- lieved, when they are known to be Divine Revelations. But then I mull needs fay, you do very ftrangly, in faying, that the queftion was, what points might lawfully be disbelie- ved, after fufficient Propofition that they are Divine Revela- tions. You affirm, that aone may, and fb does D. Potter, and with him all Proteftants, and all Chriftians. And how then is this the queftion? Who everfaidor thought, that of Divine Revelations, known to be fb, fbme might fafely and lawfully be reje&ed, and disbelieved, under pretence that they are not Fundamental ? which of us ever taught, that it was not damnable, either to deny, or fb much as doubt of the Truth of any thing, whereof we either know, or believe that God hath revealed it ? What Proteftant ever taught that it was not damnable, either to give God the lie, or to call his Veracity into queftion ? Yet you fay, The demand of Charity miftakenwas, and it was moft reasonable, that a lift of Fundamentals, ^ould be given, the denial whereof deftroys Salvation, whereas the denial of other points may fiand with Salvation, although both kinds be equally propofed, as revealed by God. 12. Let a;o The Creed contains all neceffary points of meer Belief. ii. Let the reader perufe Chanty Miftaken, and he fhall find that this qualification, although both kinds of pints be equally propofed as revealed by God, is your ad- dition, atd no part of the demand. And if it had, it had been nioft unreafbnable, feeing he and you know well enough, that f though we do not prefently without examination, fall down and worihip all your Churches propofals, as Divine Revelations) yet, we make no fuch diftin&ion of known Divine Revelations, as if fbme on- ly of them were neceflary to be believed, and the reft might fefely be rejected. So that to demand a particu- lar minute Catalogue of all points that may not be disbe- lieved after fufficient Propofition, is indeed to demand a Catalogue of all points that are or may be, in as much as none may be disbelieved, after fufEcient Propofition, that it is a Divine Revelation. At leaft it is to defire us, Frft, to Tranfcribe into this Catalogue, every Text of the whole Bible. Secondly, to fet down diftin&ly, thofe innumerous Millions of negative and pofitive con- fluences, which may be evidently deduced from it : For thefe we fay, God hath revealed. And indeed you are not afhamed in plain terms to require this of us. For having firft told us, that the demand was, what points were neceffary not to be disbelieved, after fufficient propofition that they are Divine Truths : you come to fay, Certaiinly the Creed contains not all thefe. And this you prove by ask- ing, how many Truths are there in Holy Scripture, not con- tained in the Creed, which we are not bound to know and be- lieve, but are bound under pain of damnation not to rejeB, as foon as we come to know that they are found in Holy Scri- pture ? So that in requiring a particular Catalogue of all points, not to be disbelieved, after fufficient Propofal, you require us to fet you down all points contained in Scripture, or evidently deducible from it. And yet this you are pleafed to call a reafonable, nay, a mofl reafonable Demand : whereas having ingaged your lelf to give a Ca- talogue of your Fundamentals, you conceive your engage- ment very well fatisfied by faying, all is Fundamental which the Church propofes, without going about, to give us an The Creed contains all necejjary points of meer Belief. i !} i an endlefs Inventory of her Propofals. And therefore from us, inftead of a perfect particular of Divine Reve- lations of all forts, ( of which with a lefs hyperbole than S. John ufethj we might fay, If they were to be written, the World would not hold the Books that muft be written^) me- thinks you mould accept of this general, All Divine Re- velations are true, and to be believed. 13. The very truth is, the main Queftion in this bufi- nefs is not, what Divine Revelations are neceflary to be be- lieved, or not rejected when they are fufficiently propofed : for ' all without exception , all without queftion are lb ; But what Revelations are /imply and absolutely necejjary to be propofed to the belief of Chr if ians, fo that that Society, which does propofe, and indeed believe them, hath for matter of Faith, the eff'tnce of a true Church ; that which does not, has not. Now to this queftion, though not to yours, D. Totters aflertion, (if it be true) is apparently very pertinent. And though not a full and total fatisfa<5tion to it, yet very effectual, and of great moment towards it. For the main queftion being, what points are neceflary to Salvation : and. points neceflary to Salvation, being of two forts, fbme o£ Jim- pie belief, fbme of Practice and Obedience, he that gives you a fufficient fummary, of the firft fort of neceflary points, hath brought you half way towards your Journies • end. And therefore that which he does, is no more to be flighted, as vain and impertinent, than an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a Houfe, becaufe he does it not all himfelf. Sure I am, if his aflertion be true, as I believe it is, a Corollary may prefently be deduced from it, which if it were un- braced, cannot in all reafbn, but do infinite fervice, both to the truth of Chrift, and the peace of Chriftendom. For feeing falfhood and Error could not long ftand a- gainft the power of truth, were they not fupported by Tyranny and worldly advantages, he that could aflert Chriftians to that liberty which Chrift and his Apoftles left them, mufl need do Truth a moft Heroical fervice. And feeing the overvaluing of the differences among Chriftians, is one of the greateft maintained of the Schifm ^Tt The Creed contains all necejjary pints* of rnter Belief. Schifrn of Chriftendom, he that could demonftrate that only thefe points of Belief are limply neceilary to Sal- vation, wherein Chnftians generally agree , mould he not lay a very fair and firm Foundation of the peace of Chriftendom ? Now the Corollary which I conceive would pjoduce thefe good effe&s, and which flowes na- turally from D. Potters Allertion, is this, That -what Man cr Church foever believes the Creed ', and all the evident confe- rences of it fincerely and heartily, cannot pojfibly {if alfo he believe the Scripture) be in any Error of fimple belief which is ojfenfive to God ; nor therefore deferve for any fuck Error to be deprived of his Life, or to be cut off from the Churches Communion, and the hope of Salvation. And the produ- ction of this again would be this (which highly concerns the Church of Rome to think of J That what foever Man or Church does for any Error of fimple belief deprive any man fo qualified as above, either of his temporal life, or live- lyhood or liberty, or of the Churches Communion, and hope of Salvation, is for the fir ft unjuftr, cruel, and Tyrannous : Schif- matical, prejumptuous, and uncharitable for the fecond. 1 4. Neither yet is this ( as you pretend J to take away the neceflity of believing thofe Verities of Scripture, which are not contained in the Creed, when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture , but rather to lay a neceflity upon men of believing all things written in Scripture, when once they know them to be there written. For he that believes not all known Divine Revelations to be true, how does he believe in God ? Unlefs you will fay, that the fame man, at the fame time may not believe God, and yet believe in him. The greater difficulty is , how it will not take away the neceflity of believing Scripture to be the Word of God ? But that it will not neither. For though the Creed be granted a fufficient f ummary of Articles of meer Faith , yet no man pretends that it contains the Rules of Obedi- ence, but for them, all men are referred to Scripture. Be- fides, he that pretends to believe in God, obligeth himfelf to believe it neceilary to obey that which reafbn allures lum to be the Will of God. Now reafbn will allure him The Creed contains all necejjary faints of meet belief. i} } him that believes the Creed, that it is the Will of God he ftiould believe the Scripture : even the very fame Reafbn which moves him to believe the Creed : Universal, and never failingTradition, having given this Teftimony both to Creed and Scripture, that they both by the works of God were feaied, and teftified to be the words of God. And thus much be fpoken in Anfwer to your rirft Argument ; the length whereof will be the more excufable, If I oblige my (elf to fay but little to the reft. 15. I come then to your fecond. And in Anfwer to it, deny flatly, as a thing deftru&ive of it felf, that any Error can be damnable, unlefs it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly, directly or indire&ly, of it (elf or by accident, to fome Truth for the matter of it fundamental. And to your example of Pontiffs Pilars being Judge of Chrift, I lay the denial of it in him that knows it to be revealed by God, is manifeftly deftru&ive of this Fundamental truth, that all Divine Revelations are true. Neither will you find any Error fb much as by accident damnable, but the reje- cting of it will be neceflarily laid upon us, by a real belief of all Fundamentals, and limply neceflary Truths. And I defire you would reconcile with this, that which you have laid £.15. Every Fundamental Error mufi have a contrary Fun- damental Truth, becaufe of two Contradictory prof oft ions in the fame degree, the one # falfe, the other mufjt be true, &c. 1 6. To the Third I Aniwer ; That the certainty I have of the Creed, That it was from the Apoftles, and con- tains the principles of Faith, I ground it not upon Scripture, and yet not upon the Infallibility of any prefent, much left of your Church, but upon the Authority of the An- cient Church, and written Tradition, which (as D. F otter hath proved) gave this conftant Teftimonv unto it. Be- iides I tell you, it is guilty of the fame fault which D.Pct- ters Aflertion is here accufed of: having perhaps fbmj colour toward the proving it falfe, but none at all to mew it impertinent. 17. To the Fourth, I Anfwer plainly thus, That you find fault with D. Potter for his Vermes : you are offended with him for not ufurping the Authority which he hath not ; in H h a word 254 The Cree an<^ ^et t^'em tnat in tneir n^And Zan- wor potius tempore, not about any Catholic k Dvthin, but of Rome, not guilty of Schifw. 27$ but only a Ceremony, or rather about the time of cbferving it; fb Vetavius values it : which was juft all one> as it the Church of France mould excommunicate thofe of their own Religion in England, for not keeping Chrijlmas up- on the fame day with them : And feeing he was repre- hended fharply and bitterly for ir, by moftof the Bilnops of the World, as * Eufebi/is te(tifies,and (as Cardinal Perron * Eufeb. hi(h. though mincing the matter, yet confellethj by this very /. 5. c. 24. Per- irenal* him (elf in particular admonifhed , that for fb ?0^ %gpb?> ''• fmall acaufe (propter tarn modicam cattjamj he mould not 3,c- 2- have cut off fo many Provinces from the Body of the Church : and laftly, feeing the Eccefiaftical ftory of thofe times, mentions no other notable example of any fuch Schifmatical prefumption, but this of Victor ; certainly we have great inducement to imagin, that Irenaus in this place by you quoted, had a fpecial aim at the Biihop and Church of Rome. Once, this I am fure of, that the place •fits him, and many of his fucceflors, as well as if it had been made purpofely for them. And this alfb, that he which finds fault with them who Jeparate upon [mall caufes, implies clearly, that he conceived, their might be fuch causes as were great and lufficient : And that then a Re- formation was to be made, notwithstanding any danger of divifion that might infue upon it. 12. Laftly, S. Denis of Alexandria, fays indeed and ve- ry well, that all things JJwuld be rather indy.rcd, thaw we fljould confent to the dwijion of the Church : I would add, Rather than confent to the continuation of the divifion, if it might be remedied. But then, I am to tell you, that he lays not All things mould rather be dene, but only, All things fhould rather be tndured or fuffered : wherein he fpeaks not of the evil of Sin, but of Pain and Mifery : Not of tolerating either Error or Sin in others ( though that may be lawful,) much lefs of joyning with others ior quietnefs fake, (which only were to your purpofe) in the profeilion of Error and pra&ice of iin : but of filtering any arHi&ion, nay even Martyrdom in our ov/fi perforis, rather than confent to thediviiionof the Church. Om- nia incommoda ^ fb your own Chriftophorfony enforced by N n the 2,*4 Separation of Trot eft ants from the Church the circumftances of the pkce, translates Dionyfim his words, All miferies fiould rather be endured > then we Jhculd eonfent to the Churches divifion. \%. Ad $. 9. ] In this Paragraph you tell usnrft, that the DoBrine of the total deficiency of the vifible Church, main- tained by many chief Proteflants implies in it vaft abfurdity, or rather facrilegious Blafphemy. Anfw. But neither do the Pntfe/?^/-alledged by you, maintain the deficiency of the Vifible Church , but only of the Churches Vifibility, or of the Church as it is vifible ; neither do they hold that the Vifible Church hath failed totally from its eilence, but only from its purity; and that it fell into many corruptions, but yet not to nothing. You fay fecondly, that the Reafon which cafi them upon this wicked Doctrine, was a defperatc voluntary necejfity3 becauje they were rejolved not to acknowledge the Ro- man to be the true Church, and were convinced by all ?nanner of evidence, that for diver fe Ages before Luther there was no other. But this is not to difpute but to Divine, and take upon you the property of God which is to know the Hearts of Men. For why I pray, might not the Rea- fon hereof rather be, becaufe they were convinced by all manner of evidence, as Scripture, Reafon, Antiquity, that all the Vifible Churches in the World, but above all the Roman, had degenerated from the purity of the Gofpel of Chrift, and thereupon did conclude there was no Vifi- ble Church, meaning by no Church, none free from corrup- tion, and conformable in all things to the Dodrine of Chrift. 14. Ad §. 10. Neither is there any repugnance (but in words only) between thefe (as you are pleafed to ftile them) exterminating Spirits, and thofe other, whom out of cour- tefie you intitle, in your 1 o. §. more moderate Frotefiants. For thefe affirming the Perpetual Vifibility of the Church, yet neither deny, nor doubt of her being fubjed to ma- nifold and grievous corruptions, and thole of fiich a na- ture, as were they not mitigated by invincible, or at leaft a very probable ignorance, none fubjed to them could be laved. And they on the other fide,, denying the Churches Vifibility o/Romc, not guilty ofSchifut. Vifibility, yet plainly affirm, that they conceive very good hope of the Salvation of many ,of their ignorant and noneft Fore- fathers. Thus declaring plainly, though in words they denied the Vifibility of the true Church, yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity,, but the perpe- tual purity and incorruption of the Vifible Church. 17. Ad $.11.] You ask, To what Congregation fljall a man have recourfe for the affairs of his Soul • if upon Earth there be no vifible Church of Chrifi ? Anfw. If fome one Chriftian lived alone among Va- gans in fbme Country, remote from Chriftendom, mall we conceive it impoffible for this man to be laved, be- caule he cannot have recourfe to any Congregation for the affairs of his Soul ? Will it not be lufficient, for fuch a ones Salvation, to know the Do&rine of Chrift, and live according to it ? 1 8. Obj. To imagine a company of Men believing one thing in their Heart, and, with their Mouth profejjing the con- trary (as they mufi befuppofed to do, for if they had profejjed what they believed, they would have become vifible) is to dream of a damned crew of difjemblmg Sycophants, but not to conceive aright of the Church of Chrifi. Anfw. What is this to the Viiibility of the Church ? May not the Church be Invifible, and yet thele that are of it profels their Faith ? No, lay you : Their profeffion will make them vifible. Very true, vifible in the places where, and in the times when they live, and to thole perlbns, unto whom they have neceilary occasion, to make their profeflion : But not viiible to all, or any great, or considerable part of the World while they live, much lefs confpicuous to all Ages after them. Now it is a Church thus llluftrioully and conlpicuoully vifible that you require : by whole fplendour, all men may be directed and drawn to repair to her, for the affairs of their Souls : Neither is it the Vi- fibihty of the Church ablblutely,but this degree of it, which the molt rigid Protectants deny : which is plain enough out of the places of Napier, cited by you in your 9. Part, of this chapt. Where his words are, God hath withdrawn his vifible Church from open' Afiemblies, to the Hearts of par- Nn 1 ticuiar ^T> 276 Separation of Trot eft ants from the Church ticnlar godly men. And this Church which had not open Aitemblies, he calls The latent and Invifible Church. Now I hope Papifts in England will be very apt to grant, men may be (o far Latent and Invifible, as not to profe's their Faith 111 open Aifemblies, nor to proclaim it to all the World, and yet not deny, nor diilemble it ; nor deierve to be eftcemed a damned crew of diftmbling Sycophants. Ob). But Preaching of the Word, and adminiftration of the Sacraments, cannot but make a Church Vifible : and thefe are infeparable Notes of the Church. I aniwer, they are fo far infeparable, that whereioever they are, there a Church is : But not fo, but that in fbme cafes there may be a Church, where thefe Notes are not. Again, thefe Notes will make the Church vifible : But to whom? certainly not to all men, nor to moft men : But to them only to whom the Word is Preached, and the Sacraments are ad- miniftred. They make the Church Vifible to whom them* felves are vifible, but not to others. As where your Sa- craments arc adminilrred, and your Do&rine Preached, it is vifible, that there is a Popifh Church. But this may perhaps be vifible to them only, who are prefent at thefe performances, and to others, as fecret, as if they had ne- ver been performed. 20. Ob). But S. Au&m faith, it is an impudent ^abominable , deteftible fpeech, &c. to fay the Church hath Perijhed. Anfw. I. All that S. Auitin fays is not true. 2. Though this were true, it were nothing to your purpofe, unlefs you will conceive it all one not to be, and not to be confpicu- oufly vifible. 5. This very fpeech that the Church Pe- nlfied, might be falfe and impudent in the Donatifts3 and yet not (o in the Proteftants. For there is no incongruity, that what hath lived 500. Years, may penm in 1600. II. Obj. While Proteftants deny the perpetuity of a 'vifible Church, they deftroy their own prefent Church, Anfw. I do not lee, how the Truth of any prefent Church depends upon the perpetual Vifibility, nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is part: or future. For what fenle is there, that it fhould not be in the power of God Almighty, to reftore to a flouriftung Eftate, a Church which oppref- fion of Rome , not guilty of Schifm. 277 fion hath made Invisible? to repair that which is ruined; to reform that which was corrupted, or to revive that which was dead ? Nay what rea(on is there, but that by ordinary means this may be done, fo long as the Scriptures by Divine Providence are pi*6ferved in their integrity and Authority i As a Common-wealth though never fo far collapfed and overrun with di (orders, is yet in poffibiii- ty of being reduced unto its Original State, fo long as the Ancient Laws, and Fundamental Constitutions are extant, and remain inviolate, from whence men may be directed how to make liich a Reformation. But S. Auftm urges tins 'very Argument agamft the Donatifts, and there- fore it is good. I anfwer, that I doubt much of the Con- fequence, and my Realon is, becaufe you your (elves ac- knowledge,that even generalCouncils(and therefore much more particular Doctors) though Infallible in their deter- minations, are yet in their Rca(bns and Arguments, whereupon they ground them, fubject to like Paffions and Errors with other men. 21. Obj. Laftly whereas you fay, That all Divines define Schifm a Divifion from the true Church , and from thence collect, That there mufi be a known Church from -whichitis foffiblefor men to depart. Anfwer,l might very juftly queftion your Antecedent, and defire you to confider, whether Schifm be not rather, or at leaft be not as well a divihon. of the Church, as from it ? A feparation not of a part from the whole, but of fbme parts from the other. And if you liked not this definition, I might defire you to in- form me in thofe many Schifms, which have happened in the Church of Rome, which of the parts was the Church, and which was divided from it. But to let this pafs, cer- tainly your confequence is moft unreafonable. For though whenfoever there is a Schifm, it muft neceflarily fuppo'e a Church exiftent there, yet fure we may define a Schifm, that is, declare what the word fignifies (Tor Defining is no more J though at this prefent there were neither Schiirn nor Church in the World. Unlefs you will fey, that we cannot tell wat a Rofe is, or what the word Rofe figm* - fies, but only in the Summer when we have Rofes : or that ty forfook your cor- ruptions o??ly and net your external communion, that is, fuch as pretend to communicate with you in your Confeffions . and Liturgies, and participation of Sacraments, I cannot but l88 Separation ofVrotefi ants from the Church but doubt very much, that neither you nor I have ever met with any of this condition. And if perhaps you were Jed into error, by thinking that to leave the Church, and to leave the external communion of it, was all one in fenfe and fignification, I hope by this time you are diiabu- fed, and begin to underftand, that as a man may leave a* ny faihion or cuftom ofaColledge, and yet remain ftill a member of the Colledge; fo a man may poffibly leave fbme opinion or practice of a Church formerly common to himielf and others, and continue ftill a member of that Church : Provided that what he forfakes be not one of thofe things wherein the e (fence of the Church confifts. Whereas perad venture this pra&ice may be fo involved with the external communion of this Church, that it may be (imply impoflible, for him to leave this pracl:ice,andnot to leave the Churches external communion. 46. You will reply perhaps, That the difficulty lies as 'well a^ainft thoje who pretend to for[ake the Churches corruptions and not the Church : as againft thoje who fay, they forjook the Churches corruptions, anKnot her external communion. And that the. reafon is ftill the fame : becaufe thefe fuppofed corrupti- ons, were inherent in the whole Church, and therefore by like reafon with the former ', could not be forsaken, but if the whole Church were forsaken. 47. Anf. A pretty Sophifm, and very fit to perfwade men that it is impoflible for them , to forfake any Error they hold, or any Vice they are fubjecl; to, either peculiar to themfelves, or in common with others: Becau(e forfooth, they cannot forfake themfelves, and Vices and Errors are things inherent in themlelves. The deceit lies, in not di- ftinguifhing between a Local and a Moral forfaking of any thing. For as it were an abfurdity, fit for the maintain- ed of Tranlubilantiation to defend, that a man may locally and properly depart from the accidents of a fubjecfc, and not from the (abject it (elf: So is it alfo againft reaibn to de- ny, that a man may (by an ufual phrale of fpeech) for- iake any cuiiom, or quality, good or bad, either proper to himfelf, or common to himielf with any company, and yet never truly or properly fo: lake either his company or himfelf. o/Rome, not guilty of Schifm. i % himfelf. Thus if all the Jefuites in the Society, were given to write Sophiftically, yet you might leave this ill cuftome, and yet not leave your Society. If all the Ci- tizens of a City j were addi&ed to any vanity, they might either, all, or fome of them forfake it, and yet not for- fake the City. If all the parts of a mans Body were dirty or filthy, nothing hinders but that all or fome of them might clean(e themfelves, and yet continue parts of the Body. And what reaibn then in the World is there, if the whole viiible Church were overcome with Tares and Weeds of fuperftitions; and corruptions, but that fome members of it might reform themfelves, and yet continue ftill true members of the Body of the Church, and not be made no members, but the better by their Reformati- on ? 50. We acknowledge, that we carmot(as matters now ftand ) Se far ate from your corruptions, but we mttfi depart from your External Communion. For you have fb ordered things, that whofbever will Communicate with you at all, muft Communicate with you, in your corruptions. But it is you that will not perceive the difference, between, being a part of the Church, and being in external Com- munion with all die other parts of it : taking for grant- ed, that which is certainly falfe, that no two men or Churches, divided in external Communion, can be both true parts of the Catholick Church. J I. We are not to learn the difference between Schifrn and Herefie, for Herefa we conceive, an obftinate defence of any Error, againft any neceflary Article of the Chriftian Faith : And Scbtfm, a cauflefs feparation of one part of the Church from another. But this we fay, That if we convince you of Errors and corruptions, profeffed and pra&ifed in your Communion, then we cannot be SchiC maticks, for refufing to joyn with you in the profeflion of thefe Errors, and the practice of thefe corruptions, And therefore you muft free your (elves from Error, or us from Schijm. 51. Laftly, whereas you fay, That you have demonftra- ted again(l us, that Proteftants divided themfelves from the P p external i$0 Separation of Trot efi ants from the Church external Communion of the Vifible Church , add, which exter- nal communion was corrupted, and we fhall confefs the accu- fation, and glory in it. But this is not that Quod erat de- mcm(travAum> but that we divided our felves from the Cnqrcfi, that is, made our felves Out- laws from ir, and no members of it. And moreover, in the Reafbn of your feparation from the external Communion of your Church you are miftaken : for it was not fb much becaufe ilie, your Church, as becaufe your Churches external Commu- nion was corrupted, and needed Reformation. 53. That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schijm, we grant very willingly, and therefore fay, that it concerns every man who feparates from any Churches Communion, even as much as his Salvation is worth, to look moft carefully to it, that the caufe of his feparation be juft and neceflary ; For unlefs it be neceflary, it can very hardly be fufficient. But whether a true Reforma- tion of our felves from Errors, fuperftitions and impieties, will not juftifie our feparation in thefe things ; our fepara- tion, I fay, from them who will not reform themfelves, and as much as in them lies, hinder others from doing fo ; This is the point you mould have fpoken to, but have not. As for the fentences of the Fathers to which you refer us, for the determination of this Queftion, I fuppofe by what I have faid above, the Reader underftands, by alledging them you have gained little credit; to your caufe or perfon. And that, if they were competent Judges of this Controverfie, their fentence is againft you much ra- ther than for you, 56. But your Argument you conceive, will be more convincing, // we confider that when Luther appeared, there were not two diftmcl Vifible true Churches, one Pure, the other Corrupted, but one Church only. Anf. The ground of this is no way certain, nor here fufficiently proved. For, where- as you fay, Hiftories are filent of any fuch matter : Ian- fwer, there is no neceffity, that you or I fhould have read all Hiftories, that maybe extant of this matter; nor that all fhould be extant that were written, much lefs extant uncorrupted : efpecially confidering your Church, which had ma? be clamnable > though the Error be not tyMagifimo t°- Tnefe I prefume are reafons enough, and enough juo doewt, j>o- why the firft Reformers might think, and juftly, that teftfmflicttjr not enough for themfelves, which yet to iome of their tie,m de m- predeceflbrs they hope might be enough. This very Ar- duigcmui i Do- gument was objeded to • S. Cyprian upon another occa- iom edi : nobis verb ?m fotefl ignofci, qui nunc a Domino admoniti (2 mftrutlijumw. fion, cf Rome, not guilty of Schifm. ;oi fion and alfo by the b Brittifh Quartodecimans ,x.o the main- b JVilfridusyto tainers of the Doftrine of your Church ; and • by both this A^. Qolm«n very anfwer was returned ; and therefore I cannot but hope ^ fofjo^the that for their fakes you will approve it. example of his predecefibrs fa- mous for Holinefs, and famous for Miracles, in thefe Words, De Pane Veflro Columba & Jequacibtis ejus, quorum fant it at cm vos i mi tan & regulam ac precept a cccleftibus /ignis confirmata fequi perhibctis, pojfum rejpmdere ; 2jia mult is in judicw diccnti- bus Domino Quod in nomine ejus prophet aver int & damoma ejccerint, (3 virtutes multas fccerint, refponfitrus fit Dominiu, quia nun -juiam vos novcrit. Sed abftt lit de yatribus veftris hoc dicam, quia juftius multo eft de incognitvs bonum credere quam malum. ZJnde (3 illosDeifamulos @ Deo di/ctlos ejfenonnego, q.ii fimplicitate ru'di- ca, Jed intent ione pi a Deum di lexer tint : Neque ilhs mult um obejje Pajch.c talem reor obfervantiam, quandiu nuHui advencrat qui ets inflituti perfections dccreta qudo e'aqu<£ never ant ac didicerunt Dei mandata^ probantur fuiffe fecuti. Tu aut'em & ficii tui ft audita deer eta fed is Apoftolicit^ imo universalis Ecclefie & Lee liter is facru confirmata contemmtis, a'c- fque ulla dnbietate peccatis. c Beda : lib. 3. Eccl. Hill. c. 25. 67. Obj. But if no Church may hope to Triumph o-ver Er- ror, tilljhe be in Heaven, then we mufi either grant, that Er- rors not Fundamental cannot yield fufficient caufe to for fake the Church, or affirm that all communities may and ought to be forfaken. Anfw. We do not fay, that no Church may hope to be free from all Error, either pernitious or any way noxi- ous * But that no Church may hope to be fecure from all Er- ror fimply, for this were indeed truly to triumph over all. But then we fay not, that the Communion of any Church is to be forfaken for Errors unfundamental, unlefs it ex- a& with all either a diflimulation of them being noxious ; or a Profeffion of them againft the di&ate of Conference, if they be meer Erroi-s. This if the Church does (as cer- tainly yours doth,) then her Communion is to be forfak- en, rather than the fin of Hypocrifie to be committed. Whereas to forfake the Churches of Trote/lants for inch Errors, there is no neceffity, becaufe they Err to them- felves, and do not under pain cf Excommunication ex- ad the profedion of their Errors. 68. Obj. But the Church may not be left by reafon of fin, there fort nut her by reafon of Errors not Fundamental : sn as much $02 Separation of Trote/lants from the Church much as both fin and Error are imfojfible to be avoided till fix be in Heaven. Anfw. The reafbn of the confcquence does not appear to me : But I anfwer to the Antecedent: Neither for fin or Errors, ought a Church to be forfaken, if me does not impofe and joyn them : but if fhe do, (as the Roman does,) then we muft forfake men rather than God ; leave the Churches Communion rather than commit fin, or profeis known Errors., to be Divine truths. For the Prophet Ezekiel hath allured us, that to lay, the Lord hath faid fo, when the Lord hath not faid fo, is a great fin and a high preemption, be the matter never io (mall. 69. A.d $. 25. ] Obj. But neither the Quality nor the num- ber of your Churches Errors , could warrant our for faking of it. Not the Quality , becaufe we fuppoje them not Fundamen- tal Not the number becaufe the Foundation is firong enough to fupport them. Anfw. Here again you vainly fuppofe, that we conceive your Errors in themfelves not damnable: Though we hope they are not abfblutely unpardonable : but to fay they are pardonable, is indeed to fuppofe them damnable. Secondly, though the Errors of your Church did not warrant our departure, yet your Tyrannous im- pofition of them, would be our fufKcient jultification. For this lays neceffity on us, either to forfake your company, or to profefs what we know to be falfe. 70. Obj. Our Blefjed Saviour hath declared his Will) that we forgive a private offender Seventy Seven times, that ispvith- cut limitation of (Quantity of time, or quality ofTrefpafjes\ and then how dare we Pledge his command, that we mufl not par- Jon his Church for Errors acknowledged to be not Fundamen- tal ? Anfw. He that commands us to pardon our Brother iinning againfl us fb often, will not allow us for his fake to im with him, fb much as once. Fie will have us do any thing but fin, rather than offend any man. But his will is alio , that we offend all the World, rather than iin in the lcafr. matter. And therefore though his will were, and it were in our power ( which yet is falfe ) to pardon the Errors of an Erring Church; yet certainly it is not his will,, that we mould Err witli the Church, or if we do not, of Rome, not guilty of Schifm. ;<^j not,that we fhould againft Confcience profefs the Errors of it. 71. Ad $.24.] Obj. But Schifmaticks from the Church of England or any other Church, with this very Anfwer, that they forfake ?iot the Church but the Errors of it3 may cafi off from themfelves the imputation of Schifm. Anfw. True, they may make the fame Anfwer, and the fame defence as we do, as a Murtherer can cry not guilty, as well as an In- nocent perfbn, but not fb truly nor fo juftly. The que- ftion is, not what may be pretended, but what can be proved by Schifmaticks. They may object Errors to o- ther Churches, as well as we do to yours, but that they prove their accufation fb ftrongly as we can, that ap* pears not. To the Priefts and Elders of the Jews, im- pofmg that facred filence mentioned in the Acts of the Apoftles, S. Peter and S. John anfwered they mufv obey Cod rather than men. The three Children to the King of Ba- bylon, gave in efre<5r. the fame anf wer. Give me now any fa&ious Hypocrite, who makes Religion the pretence and Cloke of his Rebellion, and who fees not that fuch a one may anfwer for himfelf,in thofe very formal words, which the Holy Apoftles and Martyrs made ufe of. And yet I prefumeno Chriftian will deny, but this anfwer was good, in the mouth of the Apoftles and Martyrs, though it were obnoxious to be ufed, by Traitors and Rebels. Certainly therefore, it is no good confequence to fay, Schifmaticks may make ufe of this Anfwer, therefore all that do make ufe of it are Schifmaticks. But moreover, it is to be ob- ferved, that the cheif part of our defence, that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your Do&rme, cannot with any colour be imployed againft Proteftants : who grant their Communion to all who hold with them, not all things, but things neceflary, that is, fuch as are in Scripture plainly delivered. 72. Obj. But the for faking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Setls and Schifms, and therefore it muft not be forfaken. Anfw. We muft not do evil to avoid evil : neither are all courfes prefently lawful, by which incon- veniences may be avoided. If all men would fubmit them- $.04 Separation of Prot eft ants from the Church themfelves to the chief Mufty of the Turks, it is apparent, there would be no divifions; yet Unity is not to be purchaf- ed at fo dear a rate. It were a thing much to be defired, that there were no divifions: yet difference of opinions touching points controverted, is rather to be chofen, than unanimous concord in damned Errors : As it is better for men to go to Heaven by diverfe ways, or rather by divers Paths of the fame way,than in the fame path to go on peace- ably to Hell. Arnica Pax, magis arnica Veritas ! Peace is dear to me, but Truth is dearer. 74. Ad §. 26. 27.] Here you make D. Potter to fay, that Prot eft ants did well to for fake the Church of Rome, be- caufe they judged foe retained all means neceffary to Salvation. Anfv. Who was ever fb ftupid as to give this ridiculous reafon? D. Potter Vindicates Proteftants for Schifm two ways : The one is, becaufe they had juft and great and neceflary caufe to feparate, which Schifmaticks never have; becaufe they that have it are no Schifmaticks : For Schifm is always a caufelefs feparation. The other is, becaufe they did not joyn with their feparation, an uncharitable damn- ing of all thofe from whom they did divide themfelves, as the manner of Schifmaticks is. Now that which he intends for a circumftance of our feparation, you make him make the caufe of it, and the motive to it. And whereas he fays, though we feparate from you in fome things, yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the Body of Chrift} and therefore are not Schifmaticks : You make him fay mo ft abfiirdly, we did well to for fake you, becaufe we judged you a member of the Body of Chnft. Juft as if a Brother mould leave his Brothers com- pany in fome ill courses, and mould fay to him, Heueinl Forfake you, yet I leave you not abfblutely, fori acknow- ledge you ftili to be my Brother, and mail ufe you as a Brother : And you perverting his fpeech, mould pretend that he had faid, I leave your company in theie ill courfes, and I do well to do fo, becaufe you are my Brother : fb making that the cauie of his leaving him, which indeed is the caufe that he left him no farther. 75. Ob). But you fay, The very reafon for which he acquitteth himfelf for Schifm, is becaufe he holds that the Church of Rome, not guilty of Schifm. p j Church which they for fook,is not cut off from the Body of ' Chriji Anf This is true: But can you not perceive a dif- ference between juftifying his feparation from Schifm by this reafbn, and making this the reafon of his feparati- on? If a map denying obedience in feme unlawful mat- ter to his lawful Sovereign, mould iky to him, herein I difbbey you, but yet I am no Rebel, becaufe I acknow- ledge you my Sovereign Lord, and am ready to obey you in all things lawful, mould not he be an egregious Syco- phant, that fhould accufe him as if he had faid, I do well to difobey you, becaufe I acknowledge you my lawful Soveraign ? Certainly he that joyns this acknow- ledgment with his neceffitated difobedience, does well ; but he that makes this confederation the realbn of his dif obedience, doth ill. 76. Obj. It is an unffieakable comfort to Catholicks (you lay) that we cannot clear our felves from Schifm otherwife, than by acknowledging that we do not, nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of falvation. Anf I befeech you to take care that this falfe comfort coft you not too dear. For why this good opinion of God Almighty, that he will not damn men for error, who were without their own fault ignorant of the truth, mould be any confutation to them, who having the key of know- ledge, will neither ufe it themfelves, nor permit others to life it; who have eyes to fee and will not fee, who have ears to hear and will not hear ! this I afliire you pafleth my capacity to apprehend. Neither ts this to make our [al- nation depend en yours, but only ours and yours not defpe- ratly ^nconiiftent. Nor to lay we muff be damned unlefi you may be faved ; but that we aflure our felves, if our lives be anfwerable, we mail be faved by our knowledge. And that we hope (and 1 tell you again Spes eft ret incer- ta nomen,) that fbme of you may poffibly be the rather faved by occafion of their unafFe&ed Ignorance. 80. Ad §. 28. 29. Whereas D.Potter fays, There is a great difference between a Schifm from them, and a Reformati- on of our felves : this you fay is acquaint fubtilty by which all Schifm and fin may be as well excufed. R r Anf * o6 Separation of Prot eft ants from the Church Am. It fcems then in your judgment, that Thieves and Adulterers, and Murthcrers, and Traytors may fav with as much probability as Protectants, that they did no hurt to others, but only reform themfelves. But then methinks it is very ftrange, that all Proteftants fhould agree with one con fent in this defence of themfelves from the impu- tation of Schifm : and that to this day, never any Thief or Murtherer fhould have been heard of to make vfc of this Apology ! And then for Schifmaticks I would know, whe- ther Viclor Bifhop of Rome, who excommunicated the Churches of J fa for not conforming to his Church in keeping Eafter ; whether No-vatian that divided from Cornelius, upon pretence that himfelf was elected Biihop of Rome, when indeed he was not ; whether Feliciflimus and his Crew, that went out of the Church of Carthage, and fet up altar againft altar, becaufe having fallen in perfe- cution, they might not be reftored to the peace of the Church prefently, upon the interceflion of the Confeflors; whether the Donatifts, who divided from, and damned all the world, becaufe all the world would not excommuni- cate them who were accufed only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the facred Books ; whether they which for the flips and infirmity of others, which they might and ought to tolerate, or upon fbme difference in matters of Order and Ceremony, or for fbme error in Do- clrin, neither pernitious nor hurtful to faith or piety, fepa- rate themfelves from others, or others.from themfelves; or laftly, whether they that put themfelves out of the Churches unity and obedience, becaufe their opinions are not appro- ved there, but reprehended and confuted, or becaufe be- ing of impious converfation, they are impatient of their Churches cenfure : I would know I fay, whether all, or any of thefe, may with any face or without extream im- pudency, put in this plea of Proteftants, and pretend with as much likelihood as they, that they did not feparate from others, but only reform themfelves ? But fuppofc they were fb impudent as to fay fo in their own defence falfely, doth it follow by any good Logick, that therefore this A- pology is not to be imployed by Proteftants, who may fay K> of Rome, not guilty ofSchifm. 50* fb truly ? We make (fay they) no Schifm from youi but only a reformation of our fellies : This, you reply, is nogoodjufli- f cation, becaufe it may be pretended by any Schifmatick. Ve- ry true, any Schifmatick that can Ipeakrnay fay the fame words, (as any Rebel that makes conicience the cloak of his impious difbbedience, may lay with S. Veter and S. John, we muft obey God rather than men ; ) But then the queftion is, whether any Schifmatick may fay (b truly ? And to this queftion you fay juft: nothing: but conclude, becauie this defence may be abufed by fome, it muft be ufed by none. As if you mould have faid, S.Pererand S. John did ill to make luch an anfwer as they made, be- caufe impious Hypocrites might make life of the fame to palliate their difbbedience and rebellion againft the lawful commands of lawful Authority. 81. Obj. But feeing their pretended Reformation confified in forfaking the Churches corruptions, their Reformation of themfelves, and their dwifeon from you, falls out to be one and the fame thing, Anf Juft as if two men having been a long while com- panions in drunkennefs, one of them mould turn fbber ; this Reformation of himfelf, and difertion of his compani- on, in this ill cuftom, would be one and the fame thing, and yet there is no neceffity that he mould leave his love to him at all, or his foci ety in other things. SoProteftants forfaking their own former corruptions, which were com- mon to them with you, could not choofe but withal forfake you in the pradice of thefe corruptions : yet this they might, and would have done without breach of Charity towards you; and without a renunciation of your compa- ny in any ad of piety and devotion, conf bleary lawful. And therefore though both thefe were by accident joyned together, yet this hinders not but that the end they aimed at, was not a feparation from you, but a reformation of themlelves. 81. Neither doth their dif agreement in the particulars of the Reformation, (which yet when you meafiire it without partiality, you'll find to be far fhert of infinite) nor their jymbclizing in the general of forfaking your corruptions, prove R r 2 any 3 oS Separation of Trot eft ants from the Church any thing to the contrary, or any way advantage your de- fign or make for your purpofe. For it is not any fign at all, much le(s an evident fign, that they had no fetled de- fign, but only to forfake the Church of Rome: for no- thing but malice can deny, that their intent at lead was, to reduce Religion to that original purity from which it was fallen. The declination from which, fbme concei- ving to have begun (though fecretly) in the Apoftles times, (the myfiery of iniquity being then in work; J and af- ter their departure to have lliewed it felfmorq, openly: o- thers again believing, that the Church continued pure for fbme Ages after the Apoftles, and then declined : And confequenrly fome aiming at an exa& conformity with the Apoilolick times : Others thinking they mould do God and men good fervice, could they reduce the Church to the condition of the fourth and fifth ages : Some taking their direction in this work of Reformation, only from Scripture; others from the Writings of Fathers, and the Decrees of Councils of the firft five Ages : certainly it is no great marvel, that there was, as you fay, disagreement between them, in the particulars of their Reformation; nay morally (peaking, it was impoffible it mould be other- wile. Yet let me tell you, the difference between them (efpecially in comparifbn of your Church and Religion,) is not the difference between good and bad,, but between good and better : And they did beft that followed Scripture, interpreted by Catholick written Tradition: which rule the Reformers of the Church of England, propofed to themfelves to follow. 83. Ad 50.31, ;i.] D.Potter, p.81.82. of his Book, fpeak thus. If a Monafiery fhould reform it felf and Jlwuld reduce into praclice ancient good discipline , when others would not : In this cafe could it be charged with Schifm from others, or with Apoftacyfrom its rule and order? So in afocietyofmen univ erf ally in fetled with fome difeafe, they that fljould free themfelves from it1 could they be therefore faid to fe far ate from the fociety ? He prefiimes they could not, and from hence Concludes, That neither can the Reformed Churches be truly accujed for making a Schifm , ( that ts fefarating from he being but one, oppofed himfelf to all, as well Subjecls as Superiors. Anf If he did fb in thecaufcof God, it was heroically done of him. This had been without hyperbolizing, Mundits contra Athanaflum, and Athanafnts contra Mundum\ the world againfl Athanafius, and Athanafius againfl the world : neither is it impoffible, that the whole world (Jwuld fo far lie in wickednef (as S.John fpeaks) that it may be . lawful and noble for one man to oppofe the world. But yet were we put to our Oaths, we mould furely not tefti- fie any fuch thing for you; for how can we fay properly and without ftreining, that he oppofed himfelf to Ally unlefs we could fay alfb, that All oppofed themfelves to him ? And how can we fay fb, feeing the world can witnefs, that fb many thoufands, nay millions followed his ftan- dard as fbon as it was advanced. 90. But 5M Separation of Trotefi ants from the Church 90. But none that lived immediatly before him thought or /pake as he did. This firft is nothing to the purpofe. The Church was then corrupted, and fure it was no dishonour to him to begin the Reformation. In the Chnftian war- fare, every man ought to flrive to be foremoft. Second- ly, it is more than you can juftifie. For though no man before him lifted up his voice like a Trumpet, as Lu- ther did, yet who can allure us, but that many before him, both thought and fpake in lower voice of Petitions and Remonflrances, in many points, as he did ? 91. Obj. Many chief learned Trotefi ants, are forced to con- fefi the Antiquity of your Doclrin and fraclice. Anf. Of many Dodnns and practices of yours this is not true ; for I pray inform me, what confeffions of Prote- flants have you, for the Antiquity of the Doclrin of the Communion in one kind : the lawfulnefs and expedience of the Latin Service: For the prefent ufe of Indulgences : For the Popes power in Temporalties over Princes : For the picturing of the Trinity : For the lawfulnefs of the worfhip of Pidures: For your Beads and Rofary, and Ladies Pfalter; and in a word, for your whole worfhip of the Blefled Virgin: For your oblations by way of confum- ption, and therefore in the quality of Sacrifices to the Vir- gin Mary and other Saints : For your faying of Tater no • fiers, and Creeds to the honour of Saints, and of Ave- Maries to the honour of other Saints beiides the Blefled Virgin: For infallibility of the Bifhop or Church of Rome: For your prohibiting the Scripture to be read publickly in tne Church, in luch Languages as all may underftand: For your Doclrin of the Bleiled Virgins immunity from- actual fin ; and for your doclrin and worfhip of her Ima- culate conception : For the neceffity of Auricular Confel- fion : For the ncceflity of the Priefts intention to obtain •benefit by any of your Sacraments: And laftly (not to trouble my felf with finding out more) for this very do- clrin of Licentioufhefs, That though a man live and die without the practice of Cnriftian vermes, and with the habits of many damnable fins un mortified, yet if he in the lafl moment of life, have any fbnowfor his fins, andjoyn con- ef Roma, net guilty of Schifm. 3 1 5 confeffion with it, certainly he fhall be faved ? Be/ides, though fbme Proteftants confefs fome of your Dodtrinc to be Ancient, yet this is nothing, fo long as it is evident, even by the confeffion of all (ides, that many Errors, i inftance in that of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, were more Ancient. Not any antiquity there- of, unlefs it be abfolute and primitive, is a certain fight of true Doctrine. For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption fas we pretend it was J who can poffible war- rant us that part of this corruption, might not get in and prevail in the 5. or 4. or J. or 2. Age? Efpeciaiiy feeing the Apoftles affure us that the my fiery of iniquity was work- ings though more fecretly even in their times. If any man ask how could it become Univerfal in fo fhort a time ? Let him tell me how the Error of the Millenaries, and the Communicating of Infants, became ib fbon U- niverfal, and then he ihall acknowledge, what was done in fbme, was poffible in others. Laftly, to cry quittance with you : As there are Protefiants who confefs the Anti- quity, but always poft-nate to Apoftohck, of fbme points of your Do&rine : fb there want not Papifls who acknow- ledge as freely, the novelty of many of them, and the Antiquity of ours. A collection of whole Tefrimony, we have (without thanks to you) in your Indices expurga- torn:T\\Q Divine Providence, bleifedly abufing for the rea- dier manifeftation of the Truth this Engine intended by you for the fubverfion and fuppreffion of it. Here is no place to ftand upon particulars : only one general inge- nuous confeffion of that great Erafmus, may not be palled over in filence. Non defunt magni Theolcgi, qui non wren- £rnrmmpp j^ tur affirmare, nihil ejj'e in Luthero, quin per frobatos ant he- i^.kp.auGode^ res defendi pojfit. There want not great Divines, which flick JcbalCum. Jfyfc not to affirm, that there is nothing in Luther, which may not be defended bj good and allowed authors. 92. After this you compofe aheap of vain fuppofitions, pretended to be grounded on our confeffions. As firft, that your Dejeafes which we forjook, neither were nor could be mortal : whereas we afliire our (elves, and are ready to juflifie, that they are and were mortal in themfelves, S f and !4 Separation of Vroteflants from the Church and would have been fb to us, if when light came to us we had loved Darknefs more than Light. Secondly, that we had no hope to avoid other Difeafes like thofefor which we for Cook your company, nor to he Jecure out of it from damnable Errors : whereas, in truth, the hope hereof was the only motive of our departure ; and we allure our felves that the means to be fecured from damnable Error, is not to be iecure as you are, but carefully to ufe thofe means of avoiding it, to which God hath promifed, and will never foil to give a bleffing. Thirdly, that thofe innumerable mif- chiefs which followed upon the departure 0/Proteftants, were caufed by it as by a proper caufe : whereas their Do&rine was no otherwife the occafion of them, than the Gofpel of Chrift was of the divifion of the World. The only Fountain of all thefe mifchiefs, being indeed no other than your pouring out a Flood of perfections againft Trotefantsy only becaufe they would not fin & be damned with you for company. Unlefs we may add the impati- ence of fbme ProteftantSy who not enduring to be Torn in peeces like Sheep by a company of Wolves without re- finance, chofe rather to die like Soldiers than Martyrs. 96. Ob j. But they endeavoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were ; and if it refufed, they did3 when they had power drive them away^ even their Juperiours both Spiritual and Temporal as is notorious. The proofs hereof are wanting and therefore I might de- fer my anfwer until they were produced ; yet take this beforehand : If they did fb, then herein, in my opinion, they did amifs ; for I have learnt from the Ancient Fa- thers of the Church,that nothing u more againfl Religion than to force Religion , and of S. Paul, the Weapons of the Chriflian V/arfare are not carnal. And great reafbn : For humane violence may make men counterfeit, but cannot make them believe, and is therefore fit for nothing but to breed form without, and Atheifm within. Befides, if this means of bringing men to embrace any Religion were generally ufed (as if it may bq juftly ufed in any place by thole that have power, and think they have truth, certainly they can- not with reafbn deny but that it may be ufed in every place. cf Rome j not guilty ofSchifin. \x 4 place, by thofe that have power as well as they, and think they have truth as well as they,) what could fol- low but the maintainance perhaps of truth, but perhaps only of the profeffion of it in one place, and the oppref- fion of it in a hundred ? What will follow from it but the prefervation peradventure of Unity, but peradventure on- ly of uniformity in particular States and Churches ; but the immortallizing the greater and more lamentable di- vifions of Chriftendom and the World ? And therefore what can follow from it, but perhaps in the judgment of carnal policy, the temporal benefit and tranquillity of temporal States and kingdoms, but the infinit pre- judice, if not the defblation of the kingdom of Chrift ? And therefore it well becomes them who have their por- tions in this life, who ferve no higher State than that of England^ or Spain, or France, nor this neither any further than they may ferve themfelves by it ; who think of no other happinefs but the prefervation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this World ; who think of no other means to preferve States, but humane power and Machi- avillian policy ; and believe no other Creed but this, Regi cut Civitati imperium habenti nihil injufium> quod utile ! that to a King or City that has Ruling Power, nothing that is profitable is unjuft. . Such men as thefe it may become to maintain by worldly power and violence1 their State-in- ftrument, Religion. For if all be vain and falfe, fas in their judgment it is) the prefent whatfbever, is better than any, becaufeit is already fetled : and alteration of it may draw with it change of States,, and the change of State the fiibverfion of their fortune. But they that are in- deed Servants and lovers of Chrifi, of Truth , of the Church,andof Man-kind,ought with all courage to oppofe themlelves againit it, as a common Enemy of all thefe. They that know there is a King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, by whofe will and pleafure Kings and Kingdoms ftand and fall, they know, that to no King or State any thing can be profitable which is unjuft; and that nothing can be more evidently unjutt, than to force weak men by the profeffion of a Religion which they believe not, Sf 2, to 2i£ Separation of Tret ef ants from the Church to lofe their own Eternal Happinefs, out of a vain and neediefs fear, left they may poffibly difturb their tempo- ral quietnefs. There is no danger to any ftate from any mans opinion; unlefs it be fuch an opinion by which di(- obedience to authority, or impiety is taught or licenced, which fort, I confefs may juftly be punilhed as well as other faults ; or unlefs this fanguinary Do&rine be joyned with it, that it is lawful for him by humane violence to enforce others to it. Therefore if Troteftants did offer vi- olence to other Mens Confciences and compel them to embrace their Reformation, I excufe them not : much lefs if they did ib to the (acred Perfbns of Kings, and thofe that were in authority over them , who ought to be fo fecured from violence, that even their unjuft and Tyrannous violence, though it may be avoided (according to that of our Saviour, When they persecute you in one Citty fly into another?) yet may it not be refifted by oppofing vio- lence againft it. Protefiants therefore that were guilty of this crirne, are not to be excufed, and blefled had they been, had they chofen rather to be Martyrs than Mur- therers, and to die for their Religion rather than to fight for it. But of all the men in the World you are the moft unfit to accufe them hereof, againft whom the Souls of Martyrs from under the Altar cry much louder than againft all their other Perfecutors together *: Who for thele ma- ny Ages together have daily facrificed Hecatombs of In- nocent Chriftians, under the name of Hereticks, to your blind zeal and furious fuperftition. Who teach plainly, that you may propagate your Religion whenfbever you have power by depofing of Kings and Invafion of King- doms, and think when you kill the Adverfaries of it, you do God good fervice. But for their departing corporally from them, whom mentally they had forfaken : For their foriaking the external Communion and company of that part of the tinreformed part of the Church, in their fiiper- ihtions and impieties : thus much of your accufation we embrace and glory in it; And fay though ibnie Protef rants might offend in the manner or the degree of their iepara- tion, yet certainly their fcparation it (elf was not Schiimati- cal4 but Innocent^ and not only fbjbut juft and neccffary. 99. Ad of Rome, not guilty of Schifm. 3 1 7 99. Ad §. 56.] What you cite out of Optatits (7. i.cont, Farm. Thou canft not deny but that thouknoweft, that in the City of Rome there was firft an Epifcopal Chair placed fcr Peter, wherein Peter the head of the Apoftles fate, whereof alfo he was called Cephas ; in which one Chair Unity was to be kept by all, left the other Apoftles wight attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair ; and that he fliould be a Schifmatick and finner, who again ft that one (ingle Chair fljould creel another. All this is impertinent, if it be well lookt into. The truth is the Donatifts had fee up at Rome a Biihop of their faction : not with intent to make him Bifhop of the whole Church but of that Church in parti- cular. Now Opt at its going upon S.Cyprians ground of one Bifoop in one Church, proves them Schiimatick for (b doing, by this Argument : S. Peter was firft Biihop of Rome, nei- ther did the Apoftles attribute to them (elves each one his particular Chair, (viz. in that City, for in other places o- thers I hope had Chairs befides S. Peter) and therefore he is a Schifmatick, who againft that one lingle Chair erects another ( viz. in that place) making another Biihop of that Diocefi befides him who was lawfully eleded to it. 100. Obj. But £^nnoc I The nature of Faith, 2 2 r but only for a Moral Afliirance ; nor only, where you pretend , that not alone Hearing and Seeing, but alfo Hifto« ries, Letters, Relations of many (which certainly are things not certain and infallible,^) are yet Foundations good enough to fupport your Faith ; Which Do&rine, if it were good and allowable, Proteftants might then hope that their Hi ftories and Letters and Relations might alfo pals for means fuffici- ent of a fufficient Certainty/ and that they mould not be excluded from Salvation for want of fuch a Certainty. But indeed the preflure of the prefent difficulty compelled you to (peak here, what I believe you will not juftifie, and with a pretty tergiverfation to {hew D.Potter your means of moral certainty; whereas the Obje&ion was that you had no means or poffibility of infallible certain- ty, for which you are plainly at as great a lofs and as far to feek as any of your Adverlaries. And therefore it con- cerns you highly not to damn others for want of it, left you involve your lelves in the fame condemnation ; ac- cording to thole terrible Words of S. Paul, Inexcufabilis es, &c. In this therefore you plainly contradict your felf. And laftly moft plainly, in laying as you do here, you con- tradict and retract your pretence of Charity to Proteftants in the beginning of your Book : For there you make pro- feffion, that you have no afurance but that Proteftants dy- ing Proteftants, may pojfibly die with contrition, and be fa- ved : And here you are very Peremptory, that they can- not but want a means abfolutely necejjary to Salvation, and wanting that cannot but be damned. 7. The third Condition you require to Faith, is, that our aflent to Divine Truths mould not only be unknown and unevident by any humane difcourfe, but that abfolutely al- fo it jhould be obfcure in it felf and ordinarily Jfeakmg, bg void even of fupernatural evidence. Which words muft have a very favourable conflrudtion, or elfe they will not be fenfe. For who can make any thing of theie words taken properly, that Faith mujt be an unknown unevident affent, or an ajj'ent abfolutely objcure ? I had always thought that known and unknown., obfcure and evident had been af- fections, not of our Aflent, but the Objedt of it, not of Uu 2 our - 2 2 The nature of Faith* our belief, but the thing believed. For well may we aC fent to a thing unknown, obfcure, or unevident ; but that our aflent it felf fhould be called therefore unknown or obfcure, feems to me as great an impropriety, as if I fhould fay, your fight were green or blew, becaufe you fee fbmething that is fb. In other places therefore I an- fwer your words, but here I muft anfwer your mean- ing : which I conceive to be, That it is neceflary to Faith that the Obje&sof it, the points which we believe fhould not be fb evidently certain, as to neceffitate our under- landings to an Aflent, that fo their might be fbme me- rit in Faith, as you love to fpeak fwho will not receive no not from God himfelf, but a penny-worth for a pen- ny,) but as we, fbme obedience in it, which can hardly have place where there is no poffibility of difobedience, as there is not where the underftanding does all, and the will nothing. Now feeing the Religion of Froteftants, though it be much more credible than yours, yet is not pretended to have the abfolute evidence of fenfe or de- monftration ; therefore I might let this Do&rine pafi without exception, for any prejudice that can redound to us by it. But yet I muft not forbear to tell you, that your difcourfe proves indeed this condition requifite to the merit, but yet not to the eflence of Faith : without it Faith were not an ad of obedience, but yet Faith may be Faith without it; and this you muftconfefs, unlefs you will fay either the Apoftles believed not the whole Go£ pel which they preached,^ or that they were not eye-wit- neffes of a great part of it : unlefs you will queftion S. John for faying that which we have feen with our Eyes, and which our hands have handled, &c. declare we unto you : nay our Saviour himfelf for faying , Thomas becaufe thou feeft thou believefi, Blejfed are they which have not Jeen and yet have believed. Yet if you will fay that in refped: of the things which they faw, the Apoftles affent was not pure and proper and meer Faith , but fbmewhat more ; an aflent containing Faith but fiiperadding to it, I will not contend with you, for it will be a contention about words. But then again I muft crave leave to tell you, that The" nature cf Faith. % ? % that the requiring this condition, is in my judgment a plain revocation of the former. For had you made the matter of Faith either naturally or fupernaturally evident, it might have been a fitly attempered and duly propor- tioned obje& for an abfblute certainty natural or fuperna- tural : But requiring as you do, that Faith Jhould be an ab- folute knowledge of a thing not absolutely known, an infallible certainty of a thing which though it ts in itfelf yet is it not made appear to us to be infallibly certain, to my underftand- ing you fpeak impoffibilities. And truly for one of your Religion to do fo, is but a good Decorum. For the mat- ter and objeCt of your Faith being fb full of contradicti- ons, a contradictious Faith may very well become a con- tradictious Religion. Your Faith therefore, if you pleafe to have it fb, let it be a free, neceffitated, certain, uncer- tain, evident, obfcure, prudent and foolifh, natural and fupernatural unnatural aflent. But they which are unwil- ling to believe nonfenfe themfelves, or to perfiiade others to do fb, it is but reafbn they fliould make the Faith wherewith they believe, an intelligible, compoffible, con- fident thing, and not define it by repugnances. Now nothing is more repugnant, than that a man fliould be required to give molt certain credit unto that which can- not be made apppear mod certainly credible : and if it appear to him to be fb, then is it not obfcure that it is fo. For if you fpeak of an acquired, rational, difcurfive Faith, certainly thefe Reafons which make the objeCt feem cre- dible, muft be the caufe of it, and confequently the ftrength and firmity of my aflent muft rife and fall to- gether with the apparent credibility of the objed. If you fpeak of a fupernatural infufed Faith, then you ei- ther iuppofe it infufed by the former means, and then that which was faid before muft be laid again : for what- soever effe& is wrought meerly by means, muft bear proportion to, and cannot exceed the vertue of the means, by which it is wrought : As nothing by water can be made more cold than water, nor by lire more hot than fire, nor by honey more fweet than honey, nor by gall more bitter than gall : Or if you will fuppofe it infufed with- out 334 Tie nature of Faith. eut means, then that power which infufeth into the un- derftaiidingaflent which bears Analogy to fight in the eye, muft alfo infufe evidence, that is, Vifibility into the Ob- ject : and look what degree of aflent is infufed into the underftanding, atleaft the fame degree of evidence muft be infufed into the Object And for yon to require a firength of credit beyond the appearance of the Objefe credibility, is all one as if you mould require me to go Ten Miles ah hour upon a Horfe that will go but five : to di'fcern a man certainly through amid or cloud that makes him not certainly difcernable ; To hear a found more clearly than it is audible; to underftand a thing more fully than it is intelligible : and he that doth fo, I may well exped that his next.injun&ion will be, that I muft fee fomething that is invifible, hear fomething in- audible, underftand fomething that is wholly unintelligi- ble. For he that demands ten of me, knowing I have but five, does in effed, as if he demanded five, knowing that I have none : and by like reafbn, you requiring that I ihould lee things farther than they are vifible, require I ftiould fee fomething invifible, and in requiring that I believe fomething more firmly than it is made to me evidently credible , you require in efFed that I believe fomething which appears to me incredible , and while it does fo. I deny not but that I am bound to believe the truth of many Texts of Scripture the fenfe whereof is to me obfcure and the Truth of many Ar- ticles of Faith the manner whereof is obfcure, and to humane underftandings incomprehenfible ; But then it is to be obfefved, that not the fenfe of fuch Texts, not the manner of thefe things is that which I am bound to believe, but the truth of them. But that I fhould believe the Truth of any thing, the truth whereof can- not be made evident with an evidence proportionable to the degree of Faith required of me, this I lay for any man to be bound to, is unjuft and unreafonablej be- caufe to do it is impoffible. 8. Ad &4, 5, 6,7,8, 9,10, n,iz.] -Yet though I deny that it is required of us to be certain m the higheft degree, infallibly The nature of Faith. 33$ infallibly certain of the truth of the things which we be- lieve, for this were to know and not believe, neither is it pbflible unlels our evidence of it, be it natural or fu- pernatural, were of the higheft degree ; yet I deny not but that we are to believe the Religion of Chrift, we are and may be infallibly certain. For firft, this is moft certain, that we are in all things to do according to wiP dom and reafbn rather than againft it. Secondly,, this is as certain/That wifdom and reafbn require that we mould believe thefe things which are by many degrees more cre- dible and probable than the contrary. Thirdly, this is as certain, that to every man who confiders impartially what great things may be faid for the truth of Chriftiani- ty, and what poor things they are which may be faid againft it, either for any other Religion or for none at all, it cannot but appear by many degrees more credible, that Chriftian Religion, is true than the contrary. And from all thefe premifes, this conclufion evidently follows, that it is infallibly certain, that we are firmly to believe the truth of Chnftkn Religion. 9. Your difcourfe therefore touching the fourth requi- iite to Faith which is Prudence, I admit fo far as to. grant. 1. That if we were required to believe with certainty (I mean a Moral certainty,) things no way reprefented as in- fallible and certain, (I mean Morally,) an unreafbnable obedience were required.ofus. And fo like wife were it, were wer equiredto believe as abiolutely certain, that which is no way reprefented to us as abfblutely certain. 1. That whom Godobligeth to believe any thing,he will not fail to furnim their undexftandings withfuch inducements, as are fuffici- ent (it they; be not negligent or perverfe) to perfuade them to believe. 3. That there is an abundance of Arguments exceedingly credible, inducing men to believe the Truth of Chriitianity : I fay Co credibile, that though they cannot make us evidently fee what we believe, yet they evidently convince that in true Wifdom and Prudence, the Articles of it deferve credit, and ought to be accepted as things re- vealed by God. 4. That without fiich reafbns and induce- ments, our choice even of the true Faith, is not to be com- mended '%% 6 The nature of Faith. mended as prudent, but to be condemned of rafhnefs and levity. 10. But then for your making Prudence, not only a commendation of a believer, and a j unification of his Faith but alfb effential to it, and part or the definition of it, in that, queftionlefs you were miftaken, and have done as if being to fay what a man is, you fhould define him, A Rea- fonable creature that hath skill in Aftronomy. For as all Aiixonomers are men, but all men are not Aftronomers,' and therefore Aftronomy ought not to be put into the de- finition of men,where nothing fhould have place, but what agrees to all men : So though all that are truly wife (that is, wife for Eternity,) will believe aright, yet many may be- lieve aright which are not wile. 1 could wifh with all my Heart as Mofes did, that all the Lords People could Prophejie : That all that believe the true Religion were able (according to S. Peters injunction) to give a reafon of the hope that is in them3 a reafon why they hope for Eternal Happinefsby this way rather than any other ! neither do I think it any great difficulty that men of ordinary capacities, if they would give their mind to it, might quickly be enabled to do fb. But {hould I affirm that all true believers can do fb, I fuppofe it would be as muchagainft experience and modefty, as it is againft Truth and Charity, to fay as you do, that they -which cannot do fo} either are not at aU> or to no purpofe true believers. And thus we fee that the foundations you build upon, are ruinous and deceitful, and fb unfit to fupport your Fabrick that they deftroy one another. I come now to fhew that your Arguments to prove Protectants Hereticks are all of the fame quality with your former grounds : which I will do by oppofing clear and fatisfying Anfwers in order to them. n. Ad $. 1;. ) To the firft then, delivered by you 4* 1 ;. That Proteftants mufl be Hereticks , becaufe they oppofed divers Truths propounded for Divine by the Vipbh Church : I Anfwer , It is not Herefie to oppofe any Truth propounded by the Church, but only fuch a Truth as is an eflential part of the Goipel of Chnft. 2. The Do&rincs which Proteftants oppoied, were not Truths, but plain ~ The nature of Faitb. ji* plain and impious falfhoods : Neither thirdly,, were they propounded as Truths by the Vifible Church, but only by a Part of it, and that a corrupted Part. 12. Ad §. 14. The next Argument, in the next Particfe tetts zts, That every error againft any doclrin revealed by God is damnable Herefie : Now either Proteftants or the Roman Church mufi err again ft the word of God: But the Roman Church we grant (perforce) doth not err damnably, neither canjhe, becaufejhe is theCatholick Church , 'which we (you fay) confefi cannot err damnably : Therefore Protefiants mufi err a- gamft Gods word, and conjequtntly are guilty of formal Herefie. Whereunto I anfwer plainly, that there be in this argu- ment almoft as many falfhoods as aflertions. For neither is every error againft any DocStrin revealed l?y God a damnable Herefie, unlefs it be revealed publickly , and plainly with a command that all ihould believe it. 2. D. Pot- ter no where grants, that the Errors of the Roman Church are not in themfehes damnable , though he hopes by accident they may not adually damn fbme men amongft you : and this you your felf confefs in divers places of your book, where you tell us, that he allows no hope of Salvation to thoft amongft you, whom ignorance cannot excufe. 3 . You beg the Queftion twice in taking for granted, Firft that the Ro- man Church i& the truly Catholick Churchy which with- out much favour can hardly pafs for a part of it : And again, that the Catholick Church cannot fall into any error of it felf damnable : for it may do fb, and frill be the Catholick Church, if it retain thofe Truths which may be an anti- dote againft the malignity of this error, to thofe that held it out of a fimple un-affe&ed ignorance. Laftly, though the thing be true, yet I might well require fbme proof of it from you, that either Protefiants or the Roman Church muft err againft Gods word. For if their con- tradiction be your only reafbn, then alfo you or the Do- minicans muft be Hereticks3 becaufe you contradict one a- nother as much as Protefiants and Papifis. 12. Ad §. 15. The third Argument pretends thatyou have (liewed already, that the Vifible Church is 'fudge of Con- trover fies^ and therefore Infallible ; from whence you Juppoje that X x it 328 T'he nature of Faith. it fellows, that to eppofe her, is to oppofe God. To which I anfwer, that you havefaid onely, and not mewed that the Vifible Church is Judge of C ont r over fie s. And in- deed how can fhe be judge of them if me cannot decide them ? And how can me decide them, if it be a queftion whether me be judge of them? That which is queftioned it felf,. cannot with any fenfe be pretended to be fit to decide other queftions ; and much lefs this quefti- on, whether it have Authority to judge and decide all que- ihons ? 2. If fhe were judge, it would not follow that me were infallible, for we have many Judges in our Courts of Judicature, yet none infallible. Nay you can- not with any modefty deny, that every man m the world ought to judge for himfelf, what Religion is trued, and yet you will not lay that every man is infallible. 3. If the Church were fuppofed Infallible, yet it would not follow at all, much lets mamfeftly, that to oppofe her declaration is to oppofe God : unlefs you fuppofe alio that as me is in- fallible, fb by heroppofers, me is known or believed to be fo. LafTly, If all this were true ( as it is all moft falfe ) yet were it to little purpole, feeing you have omitted to prove that the Vifible Church is the Roman. 14. Ad §. 16. Inftead of a fourth Argument this is prefented to us, That if Luther we re an Heretick, then they that agreed with him mufi be fo. And that Luther was a for- mal Heretick, you endeavor to prove by this moft formal Syllogifm ; To fay the Vifible Church is not Univerfal, is pro- perly an Herefie : but Luthers Reformation was not Univerfal, Therefore it cannot be excufed from formal Herefie. Where- unto I Anfwer, firft to the firft part, that it is no way im- poflible that Luther, had he been the inventer and firft broacher of a falfe Do&rin, (as he was not) might have been a formal Heretick, and yet that thofe who follow him may be only fb materially and improperly, and indeed no Hereticks. Your own men out of S. Auguft in diftm- guifh between Haretici & Htereticorum Jequaces: And you your lelf though you pronounce the leaders among the Ar- rians formal Hereticks, yet confefs that Sahian was at leaft doubtful whether theft Arrians, who in iimplicity follow- ed The nature of Faith. •> -• a ed their Teachers, might not be excufed by ignorance. And about this fufpenfion of his you alfb feem fufpended, for you neither approve nor condemn it. Secondly, to the fecond part I fay, that had you not pre filmed upon our ignorance in Logick as well as MetaphyiTcks and School Divinity, you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of fand for a formal Syllogifrn. It is even Coufin- German to this, To deny the Refurre&ion is properly an Herefie, But Luther s Reformation was not Univerfal, Therefore it cannot be excufed from formal Herefie ! Or to this, To fay the Vifible Church is not Univerfal is pro- perly an Herefie : But the preaching of the Gofpel at the beginning was not Univerfal ; therefore it cannot be excu- fed from formal Herefie. For as he whofe Reformation is but particular, may yet not deny the Refiirreclion, fb may he alio not deny the Churches Univerfality. And as the Apoftles who preached the Gofpel in the beginning, did believe the Church Univerfal, though their preaching at the beginning was not fb : So Luther alfo might and did believe the Church Univerfal, though his Reformation were but particular. I fay he did believe it Univerfal, even in your own fenfe, that is, Univerfal dejure, though not de facto. And as for univerfality in fid, he believed the Church much more Univerfal than his Reformation : For he did conceive (as appears by your own Allegations out of him ) that only the Part reformed was the true Church, but alfb that they were Part of it who needed reformation. Neither did he ever pretend to make a new Church but to reform the old one. Thirdly and laflly, to the firft propofition of this unfyllogiftical fyllogiim, I anfwer, That to fay the true Church is not always defatlo univerfal, is fb far from being an Herefie, that it is a certain Truth known to all thofe that know the world, and what Reli- gions poflefs far the greater part of it. Donatus therefore was not to blame, for faying, that the Church might pot fibly be confined to Afrkk ; but for faying without ground, that then it was fb. And S. Auftin, as he was in the right, in thinking that the Church was then extended farther than Africk ; fb was he in the wrong if he thought that Xx 2 of 34 and therefore the Herefie fb abfblutely and indifpenfably deftru&ive of falvation, that no ignorance can excuie it, nor any general repentance, without a dereliction of it, can beg a pardon for it. Such an herefie if the Church mould fall into, it might be more truly (aid to pcrim, than if it fell only into fome herefie of its own nature damna- ble. For in that ftate all the members of it, without ex- ception, all without mercy muft needs penfh for ever : In this, although thofe that might fee the truth and would not, cannot upon any good ground hope for falvation, yet without queftion, it might fend many fouls to heaven, who would gladly have embraced the Truth, but that they wan- ted means to difcover it. Thirdly and laftly, me may yet more truly be faid to penfh when fhe Apoftates from Ghrilt abfblutely, or rejects even thofe Truths out of which her Herefies may^be reformed ; as if fhe fhould directly de- ny Jefus to be the Chrifi, or the Scripture to be the Word of God. Towards which ftate of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth fbmewhat incline, by her fuperinducing upon the reft of her Errors the Doctrin of her own Infallibility, whereby her errors are made in- curable ; and by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrin, and not her do&rin to be judged of by Scripture, whereby fhe makes the Scrip-- ture uneftectuall for her Reformation. 20. Ad #. 1 8. I was very glad when I heard you fay The Holy Scripture and ancient Fathers do ajjign Separation from the Vifible Church as a mark of Herefie : for I was in good hope, that no Chriftian would fb belie the Scripture, as to fay fb of it, unlefs he could have produced fbme one Text at Icaft, wherein this was plainly affirmed, or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected. For afiure your fclf, good Sir, it is a very heinous crime to TJoe nature of Faith. 34; to fay, thus faith the Lord, when the Lord doth not fay fo. I expected therefore fbme Scripture fhould have been al- 1 edged, wherein it fhould have been laid, whofoever je fa- rates from the Roman Church is an Heretick : or the Roman Church is infallible, or the guide of Faith : or at leafr, There fluill be always Jome Vifible Church infallible in matters of Faith. Some Inch direction as this I hoped for : And I pray con- fider whether I had not reafon! The Evangelifts and A- poftles who. wrote the New Tefbment, we all fuppofe were good men, and very dehrous to direct us the fureft and plainefi: way to Heaven ; we fuppofe them likewife very diffidently inftru&ed by the Spirit of God in all the neceflary points of the Chriftian Faith, and therefore cer- tainly not ignorant of this Unum NeceJJarium> this moil ne- ceflary point of all others, without which as you pretend and teach, all faith is no Faith, that is, that the Church of Rome was defignedby God the guide ofFaith.Wc fuppofe them laftly wife men, efpecially being aflifted by the (pint of wit dom, and fuch as knew that a doubtful and queftionable guide was for mens direction as good as none at ail. And after all thefe firppofitions, which I prefume no good Chriftian will call into queftion, is it poflible that any Chriftian heart can believe, that not one amongft them all fhould ad rei memoriam write this neceflary dodxin plainly lb much as once ? Certainly in all reafon they had provided much better for the good of Chriftians if they had wrote this, though they had writ nothing elfe. Methinks the E- vangelifts undertaking to write the Gofpel of Chnft, could not poflibly have omitted, any one of them, this moll ne- ceflary point of faith, had they known it neceflary, {S.Luke efpecially, who plainly profefleth that his intent was to write all things necefary,) Methinks S.Paul writing to the Romans could not but have c ^igratulated this their Priviledge to them! Methinks inftead of laying, Tour Faith is ftokencf all the world over (which you have no reafon to be very proud of, for he lays the very lame thing to the TheJJ'aloniansJ he could not have failed to have told them once at lealt m plain terms, that their Faith was the Rule for all the World for ever. But then lure he would have forbornto put them m g 44 The nature of Faith, in fear of an impoflibility, as he doth in his eleventh Chap, that they alio, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their ft anding, might fall away to infidelity as the Jews had done. Methinks in all his other Epiftles, at leaft in fome, at leaft in one of them, he could not have failed to have given the world this direction , had he known it to be a true one, that all men were to he guided by the Church of Rome, and none to Jefar ate from it under fain of damnation. Methinks writing fo or ten of Hereticks and Antichnft, he mould have given the world this (as you pretend) only (lire prefervative from them. How was it poffible that S. Peter writing two Catholick Epiftles, mentioning his own departure, writing to preferve Chri- fHans in the Faith, fhould in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Succeflors, the Bi- ihops of Rome? How was it poffible that S.James, and S. Jude in their Catholick Epiftles mould not give this Ca- tholick direction? Methinks S.John inftead of faying, he that believeth that Jefus u the Chrift, is horn of God, (The force of which direction, your glofles do quite enervate, and make unavailable to difcern who are the Ions of God,) fhould have faid, He that adheres to the doclrin of the Ro- man Church, and lives according to it, he is a good Cfrrifti- an, and by this Mark ye jliall know him ! What man not quite out of his wits, if he confider as he fhould, the pretended neceffity of this doclrin , that without the belief hereof no man ordinarily can be faved , can poffibly force himfelf to conceive that all thefe good and holy men, fo defirous of mens falvation, and fo well allured of it (as it is pretended, ) mould be fo deeply and affectedly filent in it, and not one fay it plainly fb much as once, but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles, by many more uncertain confe- quences ? Certainly he that can judge (b uncharitably of them, it is no marvel if he cenfure other inferior fervants of Chrift: as Atheifls, and Hypocrites, and what he pleafes. Plain places therefore I did and had reafon to look for,when I heard you (ay, the holy Scripture affigns Separation from the wno defended the fame opinion as refblutely as Firmi- l. i.e. 25. Uanus, though Cardinal V err en magifterially and without Ibid. all colour of proof affirm the contrary,) and Cyprian in particular fb far caft off, as for it to be pronounced by Stephen a falfe Chrift. Again fb neceilary that the Bimops which were fent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome, were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference : But all men who were fubjed to the Bilhop of Romes Authority,were commanded by him not only to deny them the The" nature of Faith. 549 the Churches peace and Communion, but even lodging and entertainment : manifeftly declaring, that they reck- oned them among thofe whom S. "John forbids to receive to houfe, or to fay God (peed to them. All thefe terrors not- withftanding S. Cyprian holds ftill his former opinion, and *Vlcje Ccn- though out of refpetf: to the Churches peace d he judged /^t^iT no man, nor cut off any man from the right of Communion, for thinking otherwife than he held, yet he conceived Stephen « Bell. 1. 2. de and his adherents, e to hold a pernitious Error. And S. Conc.c.5. Auftin, (though diiputing with the Donatifis he ufeth fome f'M- eh &J? Tergiverfation in the point,) yet confefleth ellewhere, that c j[£ e a? * it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion. And lb far was he from conceiving any neceility of doing Co, in fubmitting to the judgment of the Biihop and Church of Rome, that he plainly profefleth that no other Biihop, but our Lord Jefus only, had power to Judge (with Authori- ty) of his Judgment, and as plainly intimates that Stephen, for ufiirping fuch a power, and making himfelf a Judge over Bifhops, was little better than a Tyrant : and as heavily almoft he cenfures him, and peremptorily oppofes him as obftinate in Error, in that' very place where he deli- vers that famous faying, How can he have God for his Fa- ther, who hath not the Church for his Mother ? little doubt- ing it feems but a man might have the Church for his Mother, who flood in oppoiition to the Church of Rome, and far from thinking what you fondly obtrude upon him, that to be United to the Roman Church, and to the Church was all one, and that feparation from S.Peters Chair was a mark, I mean a certain mark, either of Schifm or Here fie. 16. But you have givenafalfeoratleaft a ftrained Tran- slation of S. Cyprians forecited Words ; for Cyprian faith not to whom faljhood cannot have accefs, as if he had ex- empted the Roman Church from a poffibility of Error, but to whom perfidioufnefs cannot have accefs, meaning thole perfidious Schifmaticks , whom he there complains of; and of thefe by a Rhetorical infinuation, he Lw s that with fuch good Chrifiians as the Romans were, it was net pojjibie they jhould find favourable entertainment. As for his joyning the Principal Church and the Chair cf Peter,, how that will ferve % jo The nature of Faith. ferve to prove feparation from the Roman Church to be a mark of Herejie, it is hard to underftand. Though we do not altogether deny, but that the Church ot Rome might be called the Chair of S. Peter, in regard he is (aid to have Preached the Gofpel there ; and the princi- pal Church, becaufe the City was the principal and impe- rial City, which prerogative of the City, if we believe the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, was the ground and occafion, why the Fathers of former times ( I pray obferve) conferred upon this Church this prerogative above other Churches. 27. Obj. But in another place (Epift. 51.) 5. Cyprian makes Communicating with Cornelius fthe Bifhop o&Rome) and with the Catholick Church to be the fame. Anfw. This does not prove that to Communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome, and to Communicate with the Catholick Church, is always (for that you aflume) one and the feme thing. S. Cyprian fpeaks not of the Church of Rome at all, but of the Bifhop only, who when he doth Communicate with the Catholick Church, as Cormlius at that time did, then whofoever Communicates with him, cannot but Communicate with the Catholick Church : and then by accident one may truely fay, fuch a one Com- municates with you, that is, with the Catholick Church, and that to Communicate with him is to Communicate with the Catholick Church. As if Titius and Sempronins be together, he that is in company with Titius , cannot but be at that time in company with Sempronius. As if a General be marching to fome place with an Army, he that then is with the General muft at that time be with the Army : And a man may fay without abfurdity, fuch a time I was with the General, that is, with the Army, and that to be with the General is to be with the Army. Or as if a mans hand be joyned to his Body, the finger which is joyned to the hand is joyned to che Body, and a man may fay truly of it, this finger is joyned to the hand, that is, to the Body, and to be joyned to the hand is to be joyned to the Body ; becaufe all thefe things are by accident true. And yet I hope you would not deny, but The nature of Faith. $ { i but the finger might poffibly be joyned to the hand, and yet not to the Body, the hand being cut off from the Bo- dy ; and a man might another time, be with his General and not with his Army, he being abfent from the Army. And therefore by like Reafbn your collection is Sophifti- cal, being in effect but this, to communicate with fuch a Bifhop ox Rome, who did Communicate with the Catho- lick Church, was to Communicate with the Catbolick Church, therefore abfblutely and always it muft be true, that to Communicate with him, is by confequent to Com- municate with the Cathelick Church, and to be divided from the Communion, is to be an Heretick. a 8. Obj. S. Irenaeus Jaith, ( lib. 3. cont.haer : c. ;.) Be- eaufe it were long to number the fuccejfions of all Churches, we declaring the Tradition of the mo ft great mofi Ancient and known Church, founded by the two glorious Apofiles Peter and Paul, which Tradition it hath from the Apofiles, coming to us by [uccejjion of Bijhops, we confound all thofe who any way either by vain Glory, Blindnefs, or ill Opinion do gather 6therwije than they ought. For to this Church for a more pow- erful Principality, it is necejjary that all Churches refort, that # , all faithful People ( undique) of what place foever : In which (Roman Church) the Tradition from the Apofiles hath always been conferred from thofe who are (undique) every where. Anfw. Though at the firft, hearing the Glorious At- tributes here given (and that juftly) to the Church of Rome, the confounding Hereticks with her Tradition, and faying it is necejfary for all Churches to refort to her, may found like Ar- nents for you : yet he that is attentive I hope will eafi- ifcover, that it might be good and rational in Irenaus having to do with Hereticks, who, fomewhat like thofe who would be the only Catholicks, declining a tryal by Scripture as not containing the Truth ofChnft perfectly, and not fit to decide Controverfies without recourfe to Tradition : I fay he will eafily perceive that it might be^ rational in Irenaus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit than their own, efpecially a Tradition confb- nant to Scripture, and even contained in it ; and yet that it 1 y % The nature of Faith. it may be irrational in you to urge us, who do not de- cline Scripture but appeal to it as a perfect rule of Faith, with a Tradition which we pretend is many ways repug- nant to Scripture, and repugnant to a Tradition far more general than it felf, which gives teftirnony to Scripture, and laftly repugnant to it felf as giving atteftation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture. Secondly, that the Authority of the Roman Church was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradi- tion when it was United with all other Apoftolick Church- es, than now when it is divided from them, according to that of Tcrtullian, Had the Churches Erred they would have varied, but that which is the fame in all, cannot be Error but Tradition ; and therefore though Irenaus his Argument may be very probable, yet yours may be worth nothing. Third- ly, that fourteen hundred years may have made a great deal of alteration in the Roman Church : as Rivers, though near the Fountain they may retain their native and unmixt Sincerity, yet in long Progrefs cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the Fountain. And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure, may now be corrupt and impure : and fo this Argument fbeing one of thofe things which are the worfe for wearing ) might in Irenaus his time be ftrong and vigorous, and after declin- ing and decaying may long fince have fallen to nothing. Efpecially confidenng that Irena?us plays the Hiftorian on- ly and not the Prophet, and fays only, that the Apoftolick Tradition had been always there as in other Apoftolick Churches eonferved or obfereved> choofe you whether, but that itjhould be always fo he fays not, neither had he any warrant. He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Chrift to Antichnft : that the RomanC\\\irch in particular was forewarned that file alfb, nay the whole Church of the Gentiles, might fall if they look not to their fiandmg : and therefore to lecure her that (he ftiould ftand for ever, lie had no reafon, nor Autho- rity. Fourthly, that it appears manifeftly out of this Book of Irenaus quoted by you, that the Doctrine of the Chi- liafis was in his Judgment Apoftolick Tradition, as alfb it Troteflants not Hereticks. 3 j j it was efteemed (for ought appears to the contrary) by all the Doctors, and Saints,, and Martyrs of or about his time, for all that fpeak of it, or whole judgments in the point are any way recorded, are for it : and Juftm Martyr profeffeth that all good and Orthodox Chnftians of lots time believed it, and thofe that did not, he reckons amongft Hereticks. Now I demand, was this Tradition one of thofe that was conferved, and obferved in the Church of Rome, or was it not ? if not, had Iranem known (b much, he muft have retracted this commendation of that Church. If it was, then the Tradition of the prefent Church of Rome contradi&s the Ancient, and accounts it Heretical, and then fure it can be no certain note of Herefie to de- part from them, who have departed from them (elves, and prove themfelves fubjed: unto error by holding contradi- ctions. Fifthly and laftly, that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifeft as the light at noon, that though Iraneits did efteem the Roman Tradition, a great Argument of the Do&rin which he there delivers and defends againft the Hereticks of his time, vise that there was one God, yet he was very far from thinking that Church was, and ever mould be a fafe keeper, and an infallible witnefs of Tra- dition in general: Inafmuch.as in his own life, his adion proclaimed the contrary. For when ViBor Bifhop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time ofEafier upon the A(lan Bifhops under the pain of Excommunica- Xion, and damnation, Iranem , and all the other Weftern Biihops, though agreeing with him in his obfervation yet fliarply reprehended him for Excommunicating the Afian Bifhops for their difagreeing, plainly mewing, that they efteemed that not a neceflary do&rin and a fufficient ground of excommunication, which the B mop of Rome and his adherents did fo account of: For otherwife how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them, had they conceived the caufe of his excommunica- tion juft and fufficient ? And befides evidently declaring that they efteemed not fepa ration from the Roman Church a certain mark of Hereiie, feeing they efteemed not them Hereticks though feparated and cut off from the Reman Church. 2z ; 1 . 5 $4 Trotefidnts not Hereticks. ; I . Ob). S. Aufiin faith (in Pfalm cont. partem Donati) It grieves us to fee you fo to lie cut off. Number the Priefts even from the Sea of Peter ; and confider in that order of Fathers -who Jucceeded; to whomjhe is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell do not overcome'. Where he feems to fay, that the Succeffion in the Sea of Peter, was the Rock which our Saviour means when he faid, upon this Rock will I build my Church. Anf. I anfwer, Firft, We have no reafon to be confident of the truth hereof, becaufe S. Aufiin himfelf was not, but retra&s it as uncertain, and leaves to the Reader whether he will think that, or another more probable. Retr. /. I . c. l6. Secondly, what he fays of the Succeffion in the Roman Church in this place, he fays it elfewhere, of all the Suc- ceffions in all other Apoftolick Churches. Thirdly, that as in this place he urgeth the Donatifts with feparation from the Roman Church, as an argument of their Error : So elfewhere he preffeth them with their Separation from other Apoftolick Churches, nay more from thefe than from that, becaufe in Rome the Donatifts had a Bifhop, though not a perpetual Succeffion of them, but in other Apoftolick Churches they wanted both. Theje Jcattered men (faith he of the Donatifts Epift. i6$. ) read in the holy Books the Churches to which the Apofiles wrote, and have no Bifhop in them : But what is more perverse and mad, than to the LeBors reading thefe Epiftles to fay , "Peace with you, and to Jeparate from the peace of thefe Churches, to which thefe Ep'u files were written ? So Optatus having done you (as it might feem) great fervice, in upbraiding the Donatifts asSchif maticks, becaufe they had not Communion with the Church of Rome, overthrows and undoes it all again, and as it were with a fpunge wipes out all that he had laid for you, by adding after, that they were Schifmaticks, becaufe they had not the fellowfinp of Communion with the J even Churches of Afia, to which S.Jonn writes: whereof he pronounces confidently, (though I know not upon what ground) Ex- tra feptem Eccle/ias quicquid forts eft, alienum eft. Now I pray tell me, do you efteem the Authority of thefe Fathers a fufficient affiirance, that feparation from thefe other A- Trot eft ants not Hereticks. ^ e Apoftohck Churches, was a certain mark of Hereiie, o: not ? If to, then your Church hath been for many Ages heretical. If not, how is their authority, a greater argu- ment for the Roman, than for the other Churches ? If you fay, they conceived feparation fr the of Appeals, wherein he and the reft of the African Bifliops tlTseV%i proceeded fb far in thefirftor fecond MUevitan Council, ji0Uc\, as if as to b decree any African Excommunicate, that fliould appeal to there were but any man out of Afnck, and therein continued refblute unto one: whereas death : I fay this famous Aftion of his, makes clearly and | Altft™ Pre* evidently and infinitely againft you. For had Boniface, fpeaks 0fApo- and the reft of the African BilKops, a great part whereof ftolical Chur- were Saints and Martyrs, believed as an Article of Faith, ches, in the that Union and Conformity with the Do&rin of the plural number, Roman Church, in all things which me held necefla: y, was o"imakr thc a certain note of a good Catholick, and by Gods com- fhem^ioynt mand neceflary to Salvation, how was it poflible they commiHion- fhould have oppofed it in this ? Unlefs you wiil fay they ers for the judging of Ec- cleliaftical caufes. b The words of the Decree (which alfo Bellarmtne 1. 1 Je Matrimz. 17. allures us to have been formed by S. Auftin) arc thefe. Si qui (AfricauiJ ab Epifcopts frovocandum putaverint, non nifi ad Africana provocem Concdia,vel ad Primates pr&- vinciarum Juarum. Adtranfmarina ant em, qui putaverit appeilandum, a nullo intr* Afrtcamm Communionem fufcipiatnr. This Decree is by Gratian mdlt impudently corrupted. For whereas the Fathers of that Council intended it particularly againit the Church of Rome, he tells us they forbad Appeals to all, excepting only the Church of firms* "Hfi Zz 2 were 3 $6 Trotefi ant snot Heretich. were all fo foolifh as to believe at once direct contradicti- ons, 'viz,, that conformity to the Roman Church was necef- fary in all points, and not neceffary in this: or elfe fo hor- ribly impious, as believing this do&rin of the Roman Church true, and h« power to receive Appeals derived from divine Authority, notmthftanding to oppole and condemn it, and tofAnathematize all thole Africans, of what condition foever, that fliould appeal unto it. I fay of what condition foever : For it is evident, that they conclu- ded in their determination, Biinops as well as the inferior Clergy and Laity7 : And Cardinal Perrons pretence of the contrary, is a fhamelels falihood, repugnant to the plain * The words a words of the Renonft ranee of the African Bifhops to Ce- are thefe, Pr and had it immediately by infufion from God him (elf, yet, if they were the Kings Subjects, he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his ufe, or a fortrefs for his fervice : Or as the King of Trance pretends not to have power to make Piiefts him- felf, yet I hope, you will not deny him power to com- mand any of his Subjects that has this power, to ordain any fit perfbn Pried, whom he jriall defire to be ordained? Whether it do not follow, that whenfoever the King com- mands an Houfe to be Built, a Meflage to be delivered> or a Murtherer to be Executed,that all thefe things are pre- iently done without intervention of the Architect, Mef- fenger, or Executioner : As well as, that they are ifjh facto Ordained and Confecrated, who by the Kings Au- thority are commended to the Bifhops to be Ordained and Confecrated : Efpecially feeing the King will not deny, but that thefe Bilhops may refufe to do what he requires to be done, lawfully if the perfbn be unworthy, if wor- thy, unlawfully indeed, but yet de facto they may refufe : and in cafe they mould do fo, whether juftly or unjuftly ; neither the King himfelf, nor any Body elfe, would eiteem the perfbn Bifhop upon the Kings designation ? Whether many Topes, though they were not Confecrated Bifhops by any temporal Prince, yet might not, or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercife their Epi (copal function in this or that place ? And whether the Empe- rors had not authority, upon their defert, to deprive them of their junfdiCtion, by impnionment or baniihment ? Whe- ther Protefrants do indeed pretend that their Reformation is Univerfal ? Whether in laying, the Donatifts Sect was confined to Africa, you do not forget your felf, and con- A a a 1 tradirt 3 6 4 ' Protectants not Hercticks. tradiA what yon faid above, in $. 17. of this Chapter , where you tell us, they had fome of their Sett reading in Rome ? Whether it be certain, that none can admit of Bifhops willingly, but thofe that hold them of Divine in- vitation ? Whether they may not be willing to have them, conceiving that way of Government the heft, though not abfblutely neceffary? Whether all thofe Prot eft ants that conceive the diftin&ioh between Priefts and Biihops, not to be of Divine infticution,be SchiCnatical and Hereti- cal for thinking fo? Whether your form of ordaining Bifhops and Priefts, be eiTential to the conftitution of a true Churchr Whether the forms of the Church of England differ eflen- tially from your forms ? Whether in faying, that the true Church cannot fub ft ft 'without undoubted true Bijhopsand Priefts , you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church : wherein I have proved it plainly impoffible, that any man mould be fo much as morally certain, either of his own Priefthood or any other mans ? Laftly, whether any one kind of thefe external Forms and Orders, and Govern- ment be fb neceflary to the being of a Church, but that they may not be diverfe in diverfe places, and that a good and peaceable Chriftian may and ought to fubmit him- felf to the Government of the place where he lives what- fbever it be ? All thefe Queftions will be neceffary to be difcufied for the clearing of the truth of the Minor pro- pofition of your former Syllogifm, and your proofs of it : and I will promife to debate them fairly with you, if firft you will bring fbme better proof of the Major, That want of Succejfion is a certain note of Here/ie^ which for the prefent remains both unproved and improbable. 40. Obj. You fay, The Fathers aftign Succejfion as one mark of the true Church. Anjw. I confefs they did urge Tradition as an Argu- ment of the Truth of their Doclrine and of the falfhood of the contrary; and thus far they agree with you. But now fee the difference : They urged it not againft all Here- ticks that ever mould be, but againft them who rejected a great part of the Scripture, for no other reafbn but becaufe it was repugnant to their Doclrine, and corrupted other farts with Vrotefi ants not Her eticks. 365 with their additions and detractions, and perverted the remain- der with divers abfurd interpretations : SoTertullian not a leaf before the words by you cited. Nay they urged it againft them who when they were confuted out of Scripture, fell to accufe the Scriptures themselves as if they were net 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 thofe who know not Tradition, for that it was not delivered in wri- ting, fthey did mean wholly,) but by word of mouth : And that thereupon Paul alfo [aid, we /peak wifdom amongfb the per feci. So Irenaus in the very next Chapter before that which you alledge. Againft thele men being thus necefc fitated to do fb, they did urge Tradition, but what or whofe Tradition was it ? Certainly no other but the joynt Tra- dition of all the Apoftolick Churches, with one Mouth and one Voice teaching the fame Do&rine. Or if for brevity fake they produce the Tradition of any one Church, yet is it apparent, that that one was then in conjun&ion with all the reft ; Irenaus, Tertullian, Origen, teftifie as much in the words cited, and S. Aufiin, in the place before alledged by me. This Tradition they did urge againft thefe men, and in a time, in comparifon of our$j almoffc contiguous to the Apoftles : So near, that one theni> Irena- us, was Scholar to one who was Scholar to S. John the. Apoftle. Tertullian and Origen were not an Age removed from him : and the laft of them all, little more than an Age from them. Yet after all this they urged it not as a demonftration, but only as a very probable argument, far greater than any their Adverfaries could oppofe againft it. So Tertullian in the place above quoted, £. $. How is it like- ly that fo many and fo great Churches jloould Err in one Faith? (it mould be, fhould have Erred into one Faith J And this was the condition of this Argument as the Fathers urged it. Now if you having to deal with us, who queftion no Book of Scripture, which was not Anciently queftioned by fome whom you your felves efteem good Catholicks ; nay who refute not to be tried by your own Canons, your own Tranflations, who in interpreting Scriptures areconr tent to allow, of all thofe rules which you propofe, only except % 6 6 Trot eft ants not Hereticks. except that we will not allow you to be our Judges ; if you will come fifteen hundred years after the Apoftles, a fair time for the pureft Church to gather much drofs and corruptions,, and for the myftery of iniquity to bring its work to fbme perfe&ion, which in the Afoftles time be- gan to ivorky If (I (ay) you will come thus long after and urge us with the fingle Tradition of one of thefe Church- es, being now Catholick to it felf alone, and Heretical to all the reft : nay not only with her Ancient Original Tra- ditions, but alfo with her poft-nate and introduced Defi- nitions, and thefe as we pretend, repugnant to Scripture, and Ancient Tradition, and all this to decline an indif- ferent Trial by Scripture, under pretence (wherein alio you agree with the calumny of the Old Hereticks) that all necejjary truth cannot be found in them without recourse to Tradition : If, I fay, notwithstanding all thefe differences, you will ftill be urging us with this argument, as the ve- ry fame and of the fame force with that wherewith the fore-mentioned Fathers urged the Old Hereticks, certainly this muft needs proceed from a confidence you have, not only that we have no School-Divinity, nor Metaphyficks, but no Logick or common fenfe, that we are but Pictures of men, and have the definition of rational creatures giv- en us in vain. 4J. But now fuppofe I mould be liberal to you, and grant what you cannot prove, that the Fathers make Succeflion a certain and perpetual mark of the true Church; I befeech you what will come of it ? What, that want or Succeffion is a certain fignof an Heretical company ? Tru- ly if you fay fb, either you want Logick, which is a cer- tain fign of an ill difputer ; or are not pleafed to ufe it, which is a worfe. For fpeech is a certain fign of a living man, yet want of fpeech is no fure argument that he is dead, for he may be dumb and yet living Hill, and we may have other evident tokens that he is fb, as Eating, Drinking, Breathing, Moving : So, though the conftant and Univerfal delivery of any Do&rine by the Apofto- lick Churches ever fince the Apoftles, be a very great ar- gument of the truth of it, yet there is no certainty, but that Vroteftanti not Hereticks. $67 that truth, even Divine truth, may through mens wicked- nefs, be contracted from its universality, and interrupted in its perpetuity, and fb lofe this argument, and yet not want others to juitifie and fupport it feif. For it may be one of thofe principles which God hath written in all mens Hearts, or a conclusion evidently arifing from them : It may be either contained in Scripture in exprefs terms, or deducible from it by apparent confequence. If therefore you intend to prove want of a perpetual Succeffion of Pro- feflors a certain note of Herefie, you muft not content your (elf to ihew, that having it is one fign of truth ; but you muft Ihew it to be the only fign of it and infeparable from k.Butthis, if you be well advifed, you will never un- dertake. Firft becaufe it is an impoflible attempt : and then becaufe if you do it you will marr all : for by pro- ving this an infeparable fign of Catholick Do&rine, you will prove your own, which apparently wants it in many points, not to be Catholick. For whereas you fay this SucceJJion requires two things, agreement with the Afofiles De- xtrine, and an uninterrupted conveyance of it down to them that challenge it : It will be proved againft you that you fail in both points ; and that fbme things wherein you agree with the Apoftles have not been held al waies, as your condemning the Do&nne of the Chiliafi sy and holding the Euchanft not neceflary for Infants ; and that in many other things you agree not with them nor with the Church for many Ages after.For example ; In mutilation of the Com- munion, in having your Service in fuch a Language as the Affiftants generally underftand not,your offering to Saints, your Picturing of God, your worshiping of Pictures. 41. Ad §. 24.] Obj. The true Church muft have Univer- fality of f lace which Proteftants wanting cannot avoid thejufi note of Herefie. Anfw. You have not fet down -clearly and univocally what you mean by it, whether Univerfality of fa& or of right : and if of fad, whether abfblute or compara- tive: and if comparative, whether of the Church in com- panion of any other Religion, or only of Heretical Chri- ftians : or if in companion of thefe, whether in comparifbn of ;68 Trote pants not Her et ids. ef all other Se&s conjoyned, or in comparifbn only of any one. of them. Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any fenfe to be a certain mark of Here- fie : For thofe places of S. Auftin do not deferve the name. And truly in my judgment you have done advi- fedly in proving it no better. For as for Univerfality of right, or a right to Univerfality, all Religions claim it, but only the true has it, and which has it cannot be de- termined, unlets it fir ft be determined which is the true. An ablblute Univerlality, and difFufion through all the World if you mould pretend to, all the World would laugh at you. If you mould contend for latitude with any one Religion, Mahumetifm would carry the Victory from you. If you mould oppofe your ielves again ft all other Chri- ftians belides you, it is certain you would be call in this fuit alfb. If laftly, being hard driven you mould pleafe your (elves with being more than any one Seel: of Chn- ftians, it would prefently be replied, that it is uncertain whether now you are (o, but moft certain that the time tjj. has been when you have not been fo. Then when the Lucifer iariT ' whole World wondered that it was become Anion: then when Athanafim oppofed the World, and the World At hanafuts : then hIn Tbeodoret. when h your Liberim having the contemptible paucity of his Hlfi- l6-r«/-*- adherents objected to him as a note of Error, anfwered for himfelf, There was a time when there were but three op- pofed the decree of the King-, and yet thofe three were in the right, and the reft in the wrong : then when the Profefjors of Error furpajjed the number of the Profeffors of truth in propor- tion, as the Jands of the Sea do the Stars of the Heaven. (As «. In ep. 48. ad c g jtijnn acknowledged^ : ) then when d Vmcentius con- *7Comm™ito- fefteth, that the Poyfon of the Arrians had contaminated, not Hi. lib. i.e. ^. now fome certain portion, but almofi the whole World: then e In vita No- when the Author of Na^ianwis Life teftifies, That e the Zian^. Herefie of Arrius, had pof'ejjed in a manner the whole extent of the World ; and when Nazianz,en found caufe to cry out, { In Oral-. f Where are the)' who reproach us with our poverty, who define siYian.& pro the Church by the multitude, and defpife the little flock ? They ft1?!0- have the People , but we the Faith. And laftly when Athanafius was fo overborn with Sholes and Floods of Arrians^ Trot eft ant s not Hereticks. 369 Arrians} that he was enforced to write a Treatife on pur- pofe g againft thofe, who judge of the truth only by plurality g Tom. 1. of adherents. So that if you had proved want of Unive - fality even thus reftrained, to be an infallible note of He- refie, there would have been no remedy but you mud have confefled, that the time was when you were Here- ticks. And befides, I fee not how you would have avoid- ed this great inconvenience, of laying grounds and ftore- ing up arguments for Antichrift, againft he comes, by which he may prove his Company the true Church. Fo; it is evident out of Scripture, and confeiTed by you, that though his time be not long, his dominion mali be very large ; and that the true Church (hall be then, the woman driven into the wildernefi. 45. Ad $.15.26] You endeavor to prove that the Faith of Pi oteftants is no Faith, being deftitute of its due quali- fications. Obj. Fir ft 3 you fay, their belief wanteth certainty, becaufe they denying the Univerfal Infallibility of the Church, can have no certain ground to know what Obj efts are revealed or teftified by God. Anf But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility, upon what certain ground do you know that your Church is infallible ? Upon what certain ground do you know all thofe things which muft be known before you can know that your Church is infal- lible ? As that there is a Go J : that God hath promifed his affiftance to your Church in all her Decrees: that the Scripture wherein this promife is extant is the word of God : that thofe Texts of Scripture which you alledge for your infallibility are incorrupted : that that which you pre- tend is the true fenfe of them ? When you have produ- ced certain grounds for all thefe things, I doubt not but it will appear, that we alfb may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion, which is nothing elfe but the Bible, without dependence on the Churches infallibi- lity. Suppofe you mould meet with a man that for the prefent, believes neither Church, nor Scripture, nor God, but is ready and willing to believe them all, if you can B b b ' mew 370 Trot eft ants not Hereticks. ihew fbme diffident grounds to build his faith upon ; will you tell fiich a man there are no certain grounds, by which he may be converted ; or there are? If you fay the firft, you make all Religion an uncertain thing: If the fecond, then either you mull ridiculoufly perlwade, that your Church is infallible, becaufe it is infallible, or elfe that there are other certain grounds befides your Churches infallibi- lity. 46. Obj. The Holy Scripture is in it [elf mo ft true and in- fallible, but 'without the direction and declaration of the Church, we can neither have certain means to know 'what Scripture is Canonical, nor what Tranjlations be faithful, nor what is the true meaning of Scripture. Anj. But all thefe things mud be known, before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible, for no other proof of it can be pretended, but only fbme Texts of Canonical Scripture, truly interpreted: There- fore either you are miftaken, in thinking there is no other means to know thefe things, but your Churches infallible direction, or we are excluded from all means of knowing her direction to be infallible. 47. Obj. But Trot eft ants, though they are per [waded their own opinions are true, and that they have ufed fuch means of are wont to be prefcribed for understanding the Scripture, as Prayer, conferring of Texts, &c. Ttt by their dif agreement flew, that fome of them are deceived. Now they hold all the Articles of their faith, upon this only ground of Scripture, interpreted by thefe rules, and therefore it is clear, that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all. AnC The firft of thefe fuppofitions muft needs be true, but the fecond is apparently falfe : I mean, that every Pro- teftant is perfwaded that he hath ufed thofe means which are prefcribed for underftanding of Scripture. But that which you colled from thefe fuppofitions is clearly incon- fequent : and by as good Logick you might conclude,, that Logick and Geometry ft'and upon no certain grounds, that the rules of the one, and the principles of the other do fometimes fail , becaufe the difagreement of Logici- ans and Geometricians fhew, that fome of them arc de- ceived. Proteftants not Hereticks. + - 1 ceived. Might not a Jew conclude as well againft all Chriftians, that they have no certain ground wfiereon to relie in their underftanding of Scripture, becaufe their difagreements mew that fbme are deceived ; becaufe fbme deduce from it the infallibility of a Church, and others no fuch matter ? So likewife a Turk might ufe the fame ar- gument againft both Jews and Chriftians, and an Atheift againft all Religions, and a Sceptick againft all reafon. Might not the one fay, Mens difagreement in Religion, mews that there is no certainty in any ; and the other, that experience of their contradictions teacheth, that the rules of reafon do fbmetimes fail? Do not you fee and feel how void of reafon and how full of impiety your fbphiftry is ? And how tranfported with zeal againft Proteftants, you urge arguments againft them, which if they could not be anfwered, would overthrow not only your own, but all Religion ? But God be thanked, the anfiver is eafie and obvious ! For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men, and then it will eafily ap- pear, that there may be fuflicient certainty in reafon, in Religion, in the rules of interpreting Scripture, though men through their faults, take not care to make ufe of them., and fb run into divers errors and diflentions. 48. Ob). But Proteftants cannot determine what points be fundamental, and therefore muft remain uncertain, whether or no they be not in Jome fundamental error, Anf By like reafon fince you acknowledge, that every error in points defined and declared by your Church de- ftroysthe fubftance of Faith, and yet cannot determine what points be defined, it followeth that you muft remain uncertain, whether or no you be not in fbme fundamen- tal error, and fo want the fubftance of Faith, without which there can be no hope of Salvation. But though we cannot perhaps fay in particular, thus much, and no more is fundamental, yet believing all the Bible, we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamental. As he that in a receipt, takes twenty ingre- dients whereof ten only are neceflary, though he know not which thofe ten are, yet taking the whole twenty Bbb 2 he ; 7 1 Vrotefiants not Hereticks. he is Hire enough that he has taken all that are neceC dry. 49. Ad §.29. Obj. It is generally delivered by Catholick Divines that he who erreth again fi any one revealed truth, lo- Jeth all Divine Faith. Now certainly feme Vrotefiants muft do fo, becatife they hold contradictions , which cannot all be true. Therefore [ome of them at leaf, have no divine faith. Anf. I pafs by your weaknefs in urging Protectants with the authority of your Divines. Yet if the Authority of your Divines were even Canonical, certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter, there being not one of them, who delivers for true do&rin this poiition of yours, thus nakedly fet down, That any error again ft any one revealed truth defiroys all divine faith. For they all require (not your felf excepted) that this truth muft not only be revealed, but revealed publickly, and (all things con (i- dered) fiifficiently propounded to the erring party, to be one of thofe, which God under pain of damnation com- mands all men to believe. But if the Reader will be at the pains he may fee this vain fancy confuted, out of one of the moll rational and profound Do&ors of your own Church, I mean Efiim, upon the third Book of the Sententes, the 23. Diftind. and the 12.. Se&ion, beginning thus. It is diluted whether in him who believes fome of the Articles of our Faith, and disbe- lieves others, or perhaps fome one, there be faith properly fo cal- led in rejfeft'of that which he does believe ? 50. But if Vrotefiants have certainty, they want obfeurity, and fo have not that faith, which as the Apofile faith js of things not appearing. This argument you profecute in the next Paragraph ; but I can find nothing in it, to convince or periwade me that Proteftants cannot have as much cer- tainty as is required to faith, of an object not Co evident as to beget fcience. If obfeurity will not confift with certain- ty in the higheft degree, then you are to blame for requi- ring to faith contradiding conditions. If certainty and oblcurity will ftand together, what reafbn can be imagin- ed that a Proteftant may not entertain them both as well as a Papift ? Your bodies and lbuls, your underftandings and wills Trot eft ants not Heretic ks. 37$ wills are, I think, of the fame condition with ours : And why then may not wc be certain of an obfcure thing as well as you? 5 1. But then befides, I am to tell you, that you are here, every where, extreamly, if not affectedly miftaken in the Doctrin of Proteftants; who though they acknowledge, that the things which they believe are m themfelves ascer- tain as any demonftrable or fenfible verities, yet pretend not that their certainty of adherence is molt perfect and abiblute, but fuch as may be perfected and increafed as long as they walk by faith and not by fight. And confo- nant hereunto is their doctrin touching the evidence of the objects whereunto they adhere. For you abufe the world and them, if you pretend that they hold the firft of your two principles, That thefe particular Books are the word of God, (ror fo I think you mean) either to be in it felf evidently certain, or of it felf and being devefted of the motives of credibility, evidently credible : For they are not fo fond as to be ignorant, nor fo vain as to pretend, that all men do aflent to it, which they would if it were evi- • dently certain, nor lb ridiculous as to imagine, that if an Indian that never heard of Chrift or Scripture, ihould by chance find a Bible in his own Language, and were able to read it, that upon the reading it he would certainly with- out a miracle believe it to be the word of God : which he could not chufe if it were evidently credible.. What then do they affirm of it? Certainly no more than this, that whatibever man that is not of a perverfe mind, mall weigh with ferious and mature deliberation, thofe great mo- ments of reafon which may incline him to believe the Divine authority of Scripture, and compare them with the light objections that in prudence can be made againft it, he fhall not chufe but find Efficient nay abundant induce- ments to yield unto it firm faith and fincere obedience. Let that learned man Hugo Grotim (peak for all the reft, in his Book of the Truth ofQhnjlian Religion ; which Book whofoever attentively perufes mail find that a man may have great reafon to be a Chnftian without dependence upon your Church for any part of it ; and that your Re- ligion }74 Troteftantsnot Hereticks. ligion is no foundation of, but rather a fcandal and an objedion againft Chriftianity. He then in the la ft Chap- ter of his fecond Book hath thefe excellent words, c If 'any be notfatisfied with thefe arguments abovefaid, but f defires more forcible reafons for confirmation of the ex- c cellency of Chriftian Religion, let fuch know that as f there are variety of things which be true, fo are there di- c vers ways of proving or manifefting the truth. Thus is ( there one way in Mathematicks, another in Phyficks, a f third in Ethicks, and lafHy another kind when a matter c of fad is in queftion: wherein verily we muftreft coiv- f tent with fuch Teftimonies as are free from all fufpicion c of untruth ; otherwife down goes all the frame and ufe c of Hiftory, and a great part of the art of Phyfick, toge- c ther with all dutifulnefs that ought to be between parents c and children : for matters of pradice can no way elfe be c known but by fuch Teftimonies. Now it is the pleafure c of Almighty God thatthofe things which he would have * us to believe (fo that the very belief thereof may be im- r puted to us for obedience) mould not fo evidently ap- ' pear, as thofe things which are apprehended by fenle c and plain demonftration, but only be fb far forth reveal- c ed as may beget faith, and a perfwafion thereof, in the c hearts and minds of fuch as are not obftinate : That fb cthe Gofpel may be as a touchftone for tryal of mens f judgments, whether they be found or unfound. For fee- c ing thefe arguments, whereof we have fpoken, have in- f duced fo many honeft, godly, and wife men to approve 4 of this Religion, it is thereby plain enough that the fault cofothermens infidelity is not for want of fiifficient tefti- c mony, but becaufe they would not have that to be had ' and embraced for truth which is contrary to their wilful € defires; it being a hard matter for them to relinquifh 'their honours, and fet at naught other commodities; c which thing they know they ought to do, if they admit ot 1 Chriils Dodrin and obey what he hath commanded. r And this is the rather to be noted of them, for that ma- * ny other hifrorical narrations are approved by them to be 'true, which notwithftanding are only mamfeft by autho- Trot eft ant i not Heretich. 375 crity, and not by any fuch ftrong proofs, and perfwafi- * ons, or tokens, as do declare the niftory of Chrift to be ' true ; which are evident, partly by the conf effion of € thofe Jews that are yet alive ; and partly in thofe compa- c nies and congregations of Chriftians which are any where c to be found ; whereof doubtlefs there was fbme caufe. c Laftly, feeing the long duration or continuance of Chri- c ftian Religion, and the large extent thereof can be afcri- f bed to no human power, therefore the fame muft be at- c tributed to miracles : or if any deny that it came to pafs f through a miraculous manner; this very getting fo great c ftrength and power without a miracle, may be thought to c furpafs any miracle. 52. And now you fee I hope that Proteftants neither do nor need to pretend to any fuch evidence in the do&rin they believe, as cannot well confift both with the eflence and the obedience of faith. Let us come now to the laft nullity which you impute to the faith of Proteftants, and that it is want of prudence. Touching which point, as I have already demonftrated, that wifdom is not eflential to faith, but that a man may truly believe truth, though upon infufficient motives ; So I doubt not but Ifhali make good, that if prudence were neceflaryto faith, we have better title to it than you; and that if a wifer than Solomon were here, he mould have better reafbn to believe the Re- ligion of Proteftants than Papifts, the Bible rather than the Council of Trent. But let us hear what you can fay! 53. Ad §. 31. You demand then firit of all, What wif- dom TV as it to for fake a Church confejjedly and Vice Vertue> if the Pope (liallfo determine. Indeed you fay it is impoilible he mould do the latter; but that you know is a great queftion, neither is it fit my obedience to God and the King fhould depend upon Trot ell ants not Hereticks. jjg ; upon a queftionable Foundation. And howfbever, you mull grant that if by an impoffible fuppofition the Popes com- mands ihould be contrary to the lawofChrift, that they of youi Religion muft refblve to obev rather the commands of thePfl/tfthan the law of Chrift. Whereas if I follow the Scri- pture, I may, nay I muft obey my Sovereign in lawful things, ^though an Heretick, though a Tyrant., and though, I do not fay the Pope, but the Apoftles themf elves, nay an Angel from Heaven fhould teach any thing again f the Gojf el of Chrift, I may, nay linuft denounce Anathema to him. 66. Following the Scripture I mail believe a Religion, which being contrary to Flem and Blood, without any affiftance from worldly power, wit or policy ; nay againft all the power and policy of the World prevailed and en- larged it felf in a very fhort time all the World over. Where- as it is too too apparent, that your Church hath got and ftill maintains her authority over mens Confciences, by counterfeiting falfe miracles, forging falfe ftories, by ob- truding on the World fuppofitious writings, by corrupting the monuments of former times, and defacing out of them all which any way makes againft you, by Wars, by per fecu- tions, by Maiiacres,by Treafbns, by Rebellions ; in inort, by all manner of Carnal means whether violent or fraudu- lent. 67. Following the Scripture I lhall believe a Religion,the firft Preachers of Profeflbrs whereof, it is moft certain they could have no worldly ends upon the World, that they could not projedt to themfelves by it any of the profits or honours or pleafiires of this World, but rather were to expedl the contrary, even all the miferies which the World could lay upon them. On the other fide, the Head of your Church, the pretended Succeffor of the Apo- ftles, and Guide of Faith, it is even palpable, that he makes your Religion the inftrument of his ambition, and by it feeks to entitle himfelf direclly or indirectly to the Monarchy of the World. And befides, it is evident to any man that has but half an eye, that moft of thofe Do&rines which you add to the Scripture do make one way or other, for the honour or temporal profit of the Teachers of them. 68. Fol- % %\ Prote/lants not Hereticks. ^8. Following the Scripture only, I mall embrace a Religion of admirable fimplicity, confiftingin a manner wholly in the worihrpof God in Spirit and Truth. Where- as your Church and Dodrine is even loaded with an in- finity of weak, childifh, ridiculous, unfavoury fuperfti- tions and ceremonies, and full of that righteoujnefs for which Chrifi {hall Judge the World. 69. Following the Scripture, I mall believe that which Univeifal, never- failing Tradition aflures me, that it was by the admirable fupernatural Work of G$d confirmed to be the Word of God : whereas nevetv^ny miracle was wrought, never fo much as a lame Horfe cured in confirmation of your Churches authority and infallibility. And if any frrange things have been done, which may ieem to give atteftation to fbme parts of your Do&rine, yet this proves nothing but the truth of the Scripture, which foretold that (Gods providence permitting it, and the wickednefs of the World deferving it) firangefigns and •wonders fliould be wrought to confirm falfe DoHrine, that they which love .not the Truth , may he given over to firange delufions. Neither does it ieem to me any ftrange thing, that God mould permit fbme true wonders to be done to delude- them who have forged fb many to deceive the World. 70. If I follow the Scripture, I muft not promife my felf Salvation* without effe&ual dereli&ion and mortifi- cation of all Vices, and the effectual Practice of all Chnflian Vertues : But your Church opens an eafier and a broader way to Heaven, and though I continue all my life long in a courfe of fin, and without the Pra- ctice of any Vertue, yet gives me affurance that I may be let into FJeaven, at a Poftern-gate, even by any Ad of Attrition at the hour of Death, if it be joyned with con- feflion, or by an AcSfc of Contrition without confeflion. 71. Admirable are the Precepts of piety and humility, of innocence and patience, of liberality, frugality, temper- ance, ibbnety, juftice, meekneis, fortitude, conftancy and gravity, contempt of the World, love of God and the love of mankind ; In a Word, of all Vertues, and againft Trot eft ants not Heretich. j8£ againft: all vice, which the Scriptures impofe upon us, to be obeyed under pain of damnation : The fum whereof is in manner comprifed in our Saviours Sermon upon the Mount, recorded in the 5, 6, and 7. of S. Matthew, w hidi if they were generally obeyed, could not but make the world generally happy, and the goodnefs of them alone were fufficient to make any wife and good man believe that this Religion rather than any other, came from God the fountain of all goodnefs. And that they may be generally obeyed, our Saviour hath ratified them all in the clofe of his Sermon, with thefe univerfal Sanctions., Not every one that faith Lord Lord, (hall enter into the Kingdom, but he that doth the will of my Father which is in Heaven: and again, whofoever heareth thefe fayings of mine and doth them not,fljall be likned unto a foolijh man which built his houfe upon the fani% and the rain defcended, and the flood came, and the winds blew, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. Now your Church, notwithstanding all this, enervates and in a manner dif fblves and abrogates many of thefe precepts, teaching men - that they are not Laws for all Chriftians, but Counfelsof perfection and matters of Supererrogation : that a man mall do well if he do obferve them,but he fhall not fin if he obferve them not; that they are for them who aim at high places in heaven, who afpire with the two fons of Zebede, to the right hand or to the left hand of Chnft: But if a man will be content barely to go to heaven, and to be a door- keeper in the houfe of God, efpecially if he will be con- tent totaft of Purgatory in the way, he may obtain it at any eafier purchafe. Therefore the Religion of your Church is not fb holy nor fb good as the do&rin of Chnft delivered in Scripture, and therefore not fb like- ly to come from the Fountain of hollnefs and good- nefs. 72. Laftly, if I follow your Church for my Guide, I fhall do all one, as if I ihould follow a Company of blind men in a judgment of colours, or in the choice of a way. For every unconfidering man is blind in that which he does not confider. Now what is your Church but a Compa- ny of unconfidering men, who comfort themlelves be- D d d caufe ;86 Troteftantsnot Heretich. caufe they are a great company together, but all of them, either out of idlenefs refufe the trouble of a fevere tryal of their Religion, (as if heaven were not worth it,) or out of fuperftition fear the event of fuch a tryal, that they may be (crupled and ftaggered and difquieted by it ; and therefore, for the mod part do it not all. Or if they do k, they do it negligently and hypocritically, and perfun<5fcorily3 rather for the iatisfa&ion of others than themfelves : but certainly without indifference, without liberty of judgment, without a refblution to doubt of it, if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncertain, or to leave it, if they prove apparently falfe. My own experience allures me, that in this imputation I do you no injury : but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking, doubting of any -part of your Docfrin, among mortal fins. For from hence it follows, that feeing every man muft refolve that he will never commit mortal fin, that he muft never examine the grounds of it at all, for fear he mould be moved to doubt : or if he do, he mull refolve that no motives, be -they never fo ftrong mall move him to doubt, but that with his will and refblution he will uphold himfelf in a firm belief of your Religion, though his reafon and his understanding fail him. And feeing this is the condition of all thofe whom you efteem goodCatholicks, who can deny, but you are a Company of men unwilling and a- fraid to underftand, left you mould do good ! That have eyes to fee and will not fee, that have not the love of truth (which is only to be known by an indifferent tryal,) and therefore deferve to be given ever to ftrong deluftons; men that love darknefs more than light : in a word, that you are the blind leading the blind, and what prudence there can be^ in following fuch Guides, our Saviour hath taught Us in faying, If the blind lead the blind , both Jhallfall into the ditch. 74. Ad §. 1%. Your next andlaft argument againft the faith of Proteltancs is, becaufe wantwgeertainty and prudence, it muft alfo want the fourth condition, Supernaturality. For that being a humane ferfwafion, it ts not in the ejjence of it Su- ■pernatural ; and being imprudent and rafht it eannot proceed from Trot eft ants not Hereticks. 387 from Divine motion, and [0 is not fupernatural in rejpectofthe caufe from which it proceedeth. Anf This little difcourfe (lands wholly upon what went before, and therefore niuft fall together with it. I have proved the Faith of Proteftants as certain, and as prudent as the faith of Papifts ; and therefore if thefe be certain grounds of fupernaturality, our faith may have it as well as yours. I would here furthermore be informed how you can aflure us that your faith is not your perfwafionor opinion (for you make them all one,) that your Churches doctrine is true? Or if you grant it your perfwafion, why is it not the perfwafion of men,and in refped of the fubjeft of it, an humane perfwafion? I defire alfo to kno w, what? fenfe- there is in pretending that your perfwafion is, not in regard of the objeel: only and caufe of it, but in nature or eflence of ic fupernatural ? Laftly, whereas you fay, that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion: cer- tainly by this reafon all they that believe your own Reli- gion, and cannot give a wife and fufficient reafon for it. (as millions amongft you cannot) muft be condemned to have no fupernatural faith: or if not, then without queftion nothing can hinder, but that the imprudent faith of Proteftants may proceed from divine motion, as well as the imprudent faith of Papifts. 75. And thus having weighed your whole difcourfe, and found it altogether lighter than vanity, why mould I not invert your conclusion, and fay, Seeing you have not proved that whofbever errs againft any one point of Faith lofeth all divine Faith : nor that any error whatfbever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be e- fteemed a matter of faith is a grievous {in, it follows not at all, that when two men hold different do&nnes con- cerning Religion, that but one can be faved ? Not that I deny, but that the fentence of S. Chryfofi. with which you conclude this Chapter may in a good fenfe be true : for oftimes by the faith is meant only that Doctrin which is necefjary to falvation, and to fay that falvation may be had without any the leaft thing which is neceilary to falvation, implies a repugnance and deftroys it felf. Befides, not to Ddd 2 believe 3 88 The Religion of Trot eft ants afafer way believe all necefiary points, and to believe none at all, is for the purpofe of falvation all one; and therefore he that does fo, may juftly be (aid to deftroy the Gofpel of Chrift, feeing he makes it uneffe&ual to the end for which it was intended, the Salvation of mens fouls. But why you fhould conceive that all differences about Religion are concerning matters of faith, in this high notion of the word, for that I conceive no reafon. CHAP. VII. The ANSWER to the Seventh CHAPTER. Shewing that Troteftants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to them/elves, to reunite themfelves to the Roman Church. 6. Ad §. 2. ] TT7"Hereas you fay, it is direBly againft VV Charity to our [elves, to adventure the omitting of any means necejjary to falvation , this is true: But Co is this alfb, that it is directly againft the fame Charity, to adventure the omitting any thing, that may any way help or conduce to my falvation, that may make the way to it more fecure or lefs 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 my felf bound to forfake them, though they be not deftru&ive of it. Again, whereas you conclude, That if by living out of the Roman Church we put our f elves in hazard to want fomething necejjary to Salvation, we commit a grievous fin a- gamft the vertue of Charity as it rejpetis ourjelves : This con- iequence may be good in thofe which are thus perfwaded of the Roman Church, and yet live out of it. Butthefup- pofkion is certainly falfe. We may live and die out of the Roman Church, without putting our felves in any iiich hazard : Nay to live and die in it is as dangerous as to fhoot a gulf, which though fome good ignorant fouls may do and tofalvation than the Religion ofPaftfts. 589 and efcape, yet it may Well be feared that not one in a hundred but mifcarries. 7. Ad §.5.] In this Section Iobferve, firft, this ac- knowledgment of yours, That in things neceffary only becaufe ' commanded, a probable ignorance of the commandment excufes the party from all fault, and doth not exclude Salvation. From which Do&rin it feems to me to follow, that feeing obedi- ence to thzRoman Church cannot be pretended to be neceP fary, but only becaule it is commanded, therefore not only an invincible, but even a probable ignorance of this preten- ded command, muft excufe us from all faulty breach of it, and cannot exclude Salvation. Now feeing this command is not pretended to be exprefly delivered, but only to be deduced from the word of God, and that not by themoft clear and evident confequences that may be ; and feeing an infinity of great objections lies againft it, which feem ftrongly to prove that there is no fuch command; with what Charity can you fuppofe that our ignorance of this comand, is not at theleaft probable, if not all things confider'd, plain- ly invincible ? Sure 1 am, for my part, that I have done my true endeavour to find it true, and am frill willing to do fb; but the more Ifeek, the farther I am from finding, and therefore li: it be true, certainly my not finding it is very excufable, and you have reafbn to be very charitable in your cenfures of me, 1. Whereas you fay, That be- fides thefe things neceflary becaufe commanded, there are other things, which are commanded becaufe neceflary : of which number you make Divine infallible faith, Baptijm in Acl for Children, and in defire for thofewho are come to the ufe ofRect* fin, and the Sacrament of Confejfion, for thofe who have com- mitted mortal fin: In thefe words you feem to me to deli- ver a ft range Paradox, viz,. That Faith, and Bapcifm, and Confeflion are not therefore neceflary for us, becaufe God appointed them, but are therefore appointed by God becaufe they were neceflary for us, antecedently to his aprx>intment ; which if it were true, I wonder what it was beiide God that made them neceflary, and made it necef^ fary for God to command them ! Befides, in making faith one of thefe neceflary means, youieem to exclude Infants from 1 390 The Religion of Froteftants a fafer way from Salvation : For Faith cornet by hearing, and they have not heard. In requiring that this Faith mould be divine and infallible, you caft your Credentes into infinite perplex- ity, who cannot poffibly by any fure mark difcern whe- ther their Faith be Divine or human, or if you have any certain fign, whereby they may difcern, whether they be- lieve your Churches infallibility with Divine or only with humane faith, I pray produce it, for perhaps it may ferve us to fhew, that our Faith is Divine as well as yours. More- over in affirming that Baptifm in aft is neceffary for Infants, and for men only in de fire, You feem to me in the latter to deftroy the foundation of the former. For if a deiire of Baptifm will ferve iren in ftead of Baptifm, then thofe words of our Saviour, XJnlefi a wan be born again of water, &c. are not to be underftood Tterally and rigidly of exter- nal Baptifm ; for a defire of Baptifm is not Baptifm, and fo your foundation of the abfblute neceflity of Baptifm is destroyed. And if you may glofs the Text fo far, as that men may be faved by the defire, without Baptifm it felf, becaufe they cannot have it, why mould you not glofs it a little farther, that there may befome hope of the ialvation of unbaptized infants : to whom it was more lmpolfible to have a deiire of Baptifm, than fcr the former to have the thing it felf? Laftly, for your Sacrament of ConfeJ/ion, we know none fuch, nor any fuch abfblute neceflity of it. They that confefs their fins and forfake them mall find mercy, though they confefs them to God only and not to men. They that confefs them both to God and men, if they do notefrectually and in time forfake them, mall not find mercy. 3. Whereas you fay, that fuppofwg theje means ence appointed as absolutely ncceffary to falvation, there cannot but arife an obligation of procuring to have them, you muft fuppolc I hope, that wc know them to be fo appointed, and that it 15 in our power to procure them : otherwife though it may be our ill fortune to fail of the end, for want of the means, certainly wc cannot be obliged to procure them. For the rule of the law is alfb the di&ate of common reafon and equity, That no man can be obliged to -what is impojjible. We can be obliged to nothing but By to falvation than the Religion of Papifis. $ y t by vertue of fbme command: now it is impoffible that God mould command in earneft any thing which he knows to be impoffible. For to command in earneft, is to com- mand with an intent to be obeyed; which is not poffible he mould do, when he knows the thing commanded to be impoffible. Laftly, whofoever is obliged to do any thing, and does it not, commits a fault ; but Infants com- mit no fault in not procuring to have Baptifm, therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it. 4. Whereas you fay, that if Proteftants diffent from you in the point of the neceljity of Baptifm for Infants, it cannot be denied but that our difagreement is in a point fundamental ; If you mean a point efteemed fb by you, this indeed cannot be denied : But if you mean a point that indeed is fundamental, this may certainly be denied, for I deny it, and fay, that it doth not appear to me any way necefiary to Salvation to hold the truth, or not to hold an error, touching the condition of thefe Infants. This is certain, and we mult believe that God will not deal unjuftly with them, but how in particu- lar he will deal with them concerns not us, and therefore we need not much regard it. 5. Whereas you fay the like of your Sacrament of Pennance, you only fay fb, but your proofs are wanting. Laftly, whereas you fay, This rigour ought not to feem ft range or unjuft in God, but that we are rather to blefhim for ordaining us to Salvation by any means : I anfwer, that it is true, we are not to queftion the known will of God of injuftice ; yet whether that which you pretend to be Gods will, be fo indeed, or only your pre- fumption, this I hope may be queftioned lawfully and without preemption; and if we have occafion we may fafely put you in mind of Ex^ekieVs commination, againft all thole who fay, thus faith the Lord, when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to do fb. 8. Ad%.\. In the fourth Paragraph you deliver this falfe and wicked Dodtrin, that for the procuring our own falirtfiton we are always bound under pain of mortal fin, to take the fafefi way, but for avoiding fin we are not bound to do fot but may follow the opinion of any probable Doclors, though the contrary may be certainly free from iin, and theirs be doubc- 2<)Z The Religion of Trot eft ants afafer way doubtful. Which doctrin in the former part of ic is apparently falfe: For though wifdom and Charity to our felves would perfwade us always to do fo, yet many times, that way which to our felves and our falvation is more full of hazard, is not with (landing not only lawful, but more Charitable and more noble. For example, to flie from a persecution and fb to avoid the temptation of it, may be the fafer way for a mans own falvation ; yet I prefume no man ought to condemn him of impiety, who fhould refblve not to ufe his liberty in this matter ; but for Gods greater glory, the greater honour of truth, and the greater confirmation of his brethren in the faith, choofe to /land out the ftorm and endure the fiery tryal, rather than avoid it ; rather to put his own foul to the hazard of a temptation, in hope of Gods affiftance to go through with it, than to baulk the opportunity of doing God and his brethren fb great a fer- vice. This part therefore of this Do&rin is manifestly un- true. The other not only falfe but impious ; for therein you plainly give us to underftand, that in your judgment, a refblution to avoid fin, to the uttermoft of our power, is no necefTary means of Salvation, nay that a man may refblve not to do fb, without any danger of damnation. Therein you teach us^ that we are to do more for the love of our felves, and our own happinefs than for the love of God ; and in fb doing contradict our Saviour, who expreily commands us, to love the Lord our God 'with all our heart, with all our foul, and with all our ftrength; and hath taught US that the love of God confifts in avoiding fin and keeping his commandments. Therein you directly crofs S. Pauls Do- ctxin, who though he were a very probable Doctor, and had delivered his judgment for the lawfulnefi of eating meats offered to Idols ; yet he allures us that he which mould make fcruple of doing fo, and forbear upon his fcruple, fhould not fin, but only be a weak brother \ whereas he, who mould do it with a doubtful confcience, (though the action were by S. Paul warranted lawful, yet) fljould fin and be condemned for fo doing. You pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and ftout champions for the neceflity of good to falvation than the Religion of Tafifis. % 9 f good works ; but the truth is, you Jpeak lies in Hypocri/ie, and when the matter is well examined, will appear to make your felves and your own fun&ions neceflary,but obedience to God unneceflary : Which will appear to any man who confiders what find neceffity the Scripture impofes upon all men, of effe&ual mortification or the habits of all Vices, and effe&ual Converiion to newnefs of Life, x-%euaY Co)... and Univerfal obedience, and wichal remembers that an BavcL c. 7. la ad of Attrition, which you lay with •Pneflly abfolution 7. c. refuure is fuificient to Salvation, is not mortification, which be- conamrparcl. ing a work of difficulty and time, cannot be performed vcr^a jjf4 ^~ in an inltant. But for the r^fent, it appears fufficient- ^l'ImZ^- ly out of this impious affertic-rrj which makes it abfblutcly t9res conftan- neceflary for men, either in Acl: if it be poffible, or if tiumVakntem not, in Defire, to be Baptized and Abfblved by you, and (SCateros that with Intention : and in the mean time warrants them nan ^ef, *°~' that for avoiding of fin, they may fafely follow the un- rf^ i{ Jjjfa* certain guidance of a vain man, who you cannot deny jUccc]f.fftnt, may either be deceived himfelf, or out of malice deceive fid quod tills them, and neglect the certain dire&ion of God himfelf, fine populi de- and their own Conferences. What wicked ufe is made triment0 *>&• of this Do&rine, your own long experience can better c™ £^/™- lnform you, than it is poffible for me to do : yet my tur' hoc idem own little converfation with you affords me one memorable firipjijfe Bel- example to this purpofe. For upon this ground I knew a krm$num.L$. young Scholar in Dow ay, licenied by a great Cafuift to depmif- c-l- fwear a thing as upon his certain knowledge, whereof ^lY^afcSint he had yet no knowledge but only a great prefiunption, hoc idem Jen- bee auje (forfboth) it was the opinion of one Doclor that he Jijje S.Tho- might do fo. And upon the fame ground, whenfbever mam- 2- & $• you fhall come to have a prevailing party in this King- ^,art;1'aclJ7u dom , and power fufficient to reftore your Religion, you deLmlllf-t may do it by depofing or killing the King, by blowing rajfi ut fideles up of Parliaments, and by rooting out all others of a dir- obedirent Ju- ferent Faith from you. Nay this you may do, though in Iiano dpofta- vour own opinion it be unlawful, becaufe a Bellarmme, a **&*** **fi* * • . novitate nan- dum habebctnt vires compefcendi Principes tcrrenos. Et poftea, Santlus Greg-onus dicit^ nullum adverfos Jidiani perfecutionem fuiffe remedium prater lacrymas\ quo- niAtn yion habebat Ecclefia vires qmbus illus tyranmdi refiftere pojjet. E e e man 594 ZZtf Religion ofTrotefiants afafer way man with you of approved Vertue, Learning and Judg* ment, hath declared his opinion for the lawfulnefs of it, in faying, that want of fower to maintain a Rebellion, was the only reason that the Primitive Chrifiians did not Rebel againfi the perfecting Emperors. By the fame rule, feeing the Priefts and Scribes and Pharifees, men of greateft re- pute among the Jews for Vertue, Learning and Wifdom, held it a lawful and a pious work to perfecute Chrift and his Apoftles, it was lawful for .the People to follow their Leaders : for herein, according to your Dodrine, they proceeded prudently, and according to the condud of opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men as it feemed to them of Vertu^ Learning and Wifdom ;.nay by fiich as fate in Mofes Chair, and of whom it was laid, whatsoever they bid you observe , that obferve and do : which Univerfal you pretend is to be undeiftood Uni- verlally, and without any reftridion or limitation. And as lawful was it for the Pagans to perfecute the Primi- mitive Chriftians, becaufe Trajan and Pliny, men of great Vertue and Wifdom were of this opinion. Laftly, that mod impious and deteftable Dodrine, ( which by a foul calumny you impute to me, who abhor and deteft it,) that men may be Javed in any Religion, follows from this ground unavoidably. For certainly Religion is one of thofe things which is neceflary only becaufe it is com- manded : for if none were commanded under pain of damnation, how could it be damnable to be of any ? Neither can it be damnable to be of a falfe Religion, unlefs it be a fin to be fb. For neither are men faved by good luck, but only by obedience; neither are they damned for their ill Fortune but for (In and difobedi- ence. Death is the wages of nothing but fin : and S. James fiire intended to deliver the adequate caufe of fin and Death in thofe words , Lufi when it hath conceived bringeth forth fin, and fin -when it is fimJJjed bringeth forth Death. Seeing therefore in iiich things, according to your Dodrine, it is lufficient for avoiding of Cm, that we proceed prudently, and by the condud of fbme pro- bable opinion, maturely weighed and approved by men of Learning;, to fahation than the Religion of Papifts. oqc Learning, Vertue and Wifdom ; and feeing neither Javs want their Gamaliels , nor Pagans their Antoninus s nor any Sect of Chriftians fiich profeflbrs and maintainers of their feveral Sects, as are efteemed by the People, which know no better (and that very reaforiably) men of Vertue, Learning , and Wifdom , it follows evidently that the embracing their Religion proceeds upon fuch realon as may warrant their a&ion to be prudent, and this is fuffici- ent for avoiding of fin, and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation,for that in humane affairs, & diicourfe,evidence and certainty cannot be always expected. I have flood the longer upon the refutation of this Do&rine, not on- ly becaufe it is impious, and becaufe bad ufe is made of it, and worfe may be, but only becaufe the contrary po- rtion, That men are bound for avoiding fin always to take the fafeft wayi is a fair and fure Foundation, for a clear con- futation of the main conclusion, which in this Chapter you labour in vain to prove, and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones felf, and of obedience to God, Papifts (unlefs ignorance ex- cufe them) are in ftate of fin as long as they remain in (ubje&ion to the Reman Church. 9. for if the fafer way for avoiding fin, be alio the fafer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly the way of Trot eft- ants muft be more fecure, and the Roman way more dangerous ; take but into your confederation thefe enfuing Controverfies : Whether it be lawful to worlhip Pictures ? to Picture the Trinity ? to invocate Saints and Angels? to deny Lay-men the Cup in the Sacrament ? to adore the Sacraments ? to prohibit certain Orders of Men and Women to Marry ? to Celebrate the publick fer- vice of God in a language which the affiftants generally underftand not ? and you will not choofe but confefs that in all thefe you are on the more dangerous fide for the committing of fin, and we on that which is more fecure. For in all thefe things, if we fay true, you do that which is impious : on the other fide if you were in the right, yet we might be fecure enough, for we mould only not do ibmething which you confefs not neceflary to be done. Eec 2 We . q £ The Religion %of Trot eft ants a fafer way We pretend, and are ready to juftifie out of principles agreed upon between us, that in all thefe things, you violate the manifeft commandments of God ; and alledge fuch Texts of Scripture againft you, as, if you would weigh them with any indifference, would put the matter out of queftion, but certainly you cannot with any mo- defty deny, but that at leaft they make it queftionable. On the other fide, you cannot with any face pretend, and if you fhould, know not how to go about to prove, that there is any neceffity of doing any of thefe things ; - that it is unlawful not to worfhip Pi&ures, not to Pi&ure the Trinity, not to invocate Saints and Angels, not to give all men the entire Sacrament, not to adore the Eu- charift, not to prohibit Marriage, not to Celebrate Divine Service in an unknown Tongue : I fay you neither donor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoyns us^ no nor fb much as an Evangelical Council that advifes us to do any of thefe things. Now where no law is there can he no fin , for fin is the tranfereffion of the Law; It remains therefore that our forbearing to do thefe things, muft be free from all danger and fuf picion of fin ; whereas your a&ing of them, muft be, if not certainly impious, without all contradi&ion queftionable and dangerous. I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded, that if the fafer way for avoiding fin, be alfb (as moft certainly it is,) the fafer way for avoiding damnation, then certainly the way of Trot eft ants muft be more fafe, and tho Roman way more dangerous. 12. Ad $. 5.] Here you begin to make fbme fhew of arguing ; and the firft Argument put into form ftands thus, Every leaft Error in Faith deftroys the nature of Faith $ It ts certain that fome Proteflants do Err, and therefore they, want the fubftance of Faith. The Major of which Syllo- gifm I have formerly confuted by unanfwerable Argu- ments out of one of your own beft Authors, who fhews plainly that he hath amongft you, as ftrange as you make it, many other Abettors. Bendes, if it were true, it would conduce that either you or the Dominicans have no Faith, in as much as you oppofe one another as much as Armi- nians and Cahinifts. 1 5. The to falvation than the Religion ofVapifts. ;97 i %. The Second Argument ftands thus, Since all Prote- ftants fret end the like certainty , it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all : Which Argument if it were good, then what can hinder but this muft al(o be fo, Since Trotefiants and Vapifls pretend the like certainty ; it is clear that hone of them have any certainty at all ! And this too : Since all Chriftians pretend the like certainty, it is clear that none of them nave any certainty at all ! And thirdly this : Since men of all Religions pretend a like certainty, it is clear that none of them have any at all ! And laftly this : Since oft-times they which are abu- fed with a fpecious Paralogifm, pretend the like certain- ty with them which demonftrate, it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all ! Certainly Sir, Zeal and the Devil did ftrangely blind you, if you did not fee that thefe horrid impieties were the immediate confluen- ces of your pofitions, if you did fee it, and yet would fet them down, you deferve worfe cenfiire. Yet fuch as thefe, are all the Arguments wherewith you conceive your felf to have proved undoubtedly, that Trotefiants have reafon at leafi to doubt in what cafe they ft and. 14. Your third and fourth Argument may be thus put into one ; Froteftants cannot tell what points in particular he Fundamental ; therefore they cannot tell whether they or their Brethren do not Err Fundamentally, and whether their difference he not Fundamental. Both which dedu&ions I have formerly mewed to be moft inconfequent ; for know- ing the Scripture to contain all Fundamentals, (chough 1 many more points befides, which makes it difficult to fay precifely what is Fundamental and what not,) know- ing this I fay and believing it, what can hinder but that I may be well aflured, that I believe all Fundamen- tals, and that all who believe the Scripture fincerely as well as I,do not differ from me in any thing Fundamental ? 15. In the clofe of this Section, you lay, :hat you omit to add that we want the Sacrament of \t^ntance mft tint- ed for the remifjion of fins > or at leafi we muft ccnfejfs that we hold it not necejjary : and yet our own Brethren the Cen- tury writers acknowledge that in the times of Cyprian a?id ;9§ Th* Religion of Trot eft ants a [after way and Tertullian, private Confeffion even of thoughts was ufid, and that it was then commanded and thought necejjary ; and then our Ordination , you fay, is very doubtful and all that depends upon it. Anfiver, I alio omit to anfwer, r. That your Brother Rhenamts, acknowledges the contrary, and aflures us that the Confeffion then required and in life, was publick, and before the Church, and that your auricular Confeffion was not then in che World ; for which his Mouth is flopped by your Index Expurgatorit**. a. That your Brother Arcudms acknowledges, that the Eucharift was in Cyprians time given to Infants, and e- fteemed neceflary, or at lead profitable for them, and the giving it mews no lefs; and now I would know whether you will acknowledg your Church bound to give it, and to efteem fb of it ? %. That it might be then commanded, and being commanded be thought neceflary, and yet be but a Church Conftitution. Nei- ther will I deny, if the prefent Church could, and would fo order it, that the abufes of it might be prevented, and conceiving it profitable, mould en joy n the ufe of it, but that being commanded it would be neceflary. 4. Concerning our Ordinations, befides that I have pro- ved it impoffible that they mould be fb doubtful as yours, according to your own principles ; I anfwer, that expe- rience mews them certainly liifficient to bring men to Faith and Repentance, and confequently to Salvation ; and that if there were any fecret defed of any thing ne- ceflary, which we cannot help, God will certainly fiipply it, 19. It is remarkable againft what you fay, §. 7. That any fmaU Error in Faith deftroys all Faith , that S. Auftin^ whofe authority is here flood upon, thought otherwife : He conceived the Donatifts to hold fbme Error in Faith and yet not to have no Faith. His words of them to this purpofe are moft pregnant and evident, you are with us (faith he to the Donatift. Ep. 48.) in Baptifm3 in the Creed, in the other Sacraments : And again. Super geftts cum erne- rit : Thou haft proved to me that thou haft Faith ; prove to me Lib t.prope ^eVJtJe f^at ^JCU kafi Charity. Parallel to which words are znitium. thefe of" Opt at us , Among ft us and you is one Ecclefiaftical con- t erfation, to falvation than the Religion of Papifts. % 9 £ verfation, common lejjbns, the fame Faith, the fame Sacraments, Where by the way we may obferve, that in the judg- ments of thefe Fathers, even the Donatifis, though He- reticks and Schifmaticks, gave true Ordination, the true Sacrament of Matrimony, true Sacramental Abfblution, Confirmation, the true Sacrament of the Euchanft, true extream Unction; or elfe (choofe you whether) fbmeof thefe were not then efteemed Sacraments. But for Or- dination , whether he held it a Sacrament or no, cer- tainly he held that it remained with them entire : for lb he fays in exprefs terms, in his Book againll Tar- menianm his Epiitle. Which Doctrine if you can re- concile with the prefent Doctrine of the Roman Church, Erts mihi magnus Apollo. 20. Ad §.8.] Obj. You fay there is un inevitable ne- cejftty for m, either to grant Salvation to your Church ? or to entail certain damnation upon cur own> becaufe ours can have no being till Luther, unlefs yours be fuppofed to have been the true Church. I anfvver, this cauie is no caufe : For firfl, as Luther had no being before Luther , and yet he was when he was, though he was not before ; fb there is no repugnance in the terms, but that there might be a true Church after Luther \ though there were none for fbme Ages before ; as fince Columbus his time, there have been Chriftians in America, though before there were none for many Ages. For neither do you mew, neither does it appear,that the generation of Churches lsUnivocal, that nothing but a Church can poflibly beget a Church : nor that the prefent being of a true Church, depends neceffanly upon the perpetuity of a Church in all Ages ; any more than the prefent being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetual pedigree of them. For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity, yet I fee no- thing in your Book to make me underftand, that the truth of the prefent depends upon it, nor any thing that can hinder, but that a falfe Church, (Gods providence over- watching and over-ruling it,) may preferve the means of confuting their own Herefies, and reducing men to truth, and fb railing a true Church, I mean the integrity and 40* The Religion of Protefiants afafer way and the Authority of the word of God with men. Thus the Jews preferve means to make men Chriftians, and Papifis preferve means to make men Trotefiants, and Pro- tefiants (which you fay are a falfe Church,) do, as you pretend, preferve means to make men Papifis $ that is, their own Bibles, out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papifis. Secondly, you fhew not, nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours. For though you talk vainly, as if you were the only men in the World be- fore Luther, yet the World knows that this is but talkJ and that there were other Chnftians befides you, which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not been. Laftly, you fhew not, neither doth it appear, that your being acknowledged in fome fenfe a true Church, doth neceflarily import, that we muft grant Salvation to it, unlefs by it you underftand the ignorant members of it, which is a very unufual Synechdoche. it. Whereas you fay, that Catholicks never granted that the Donatifts had a true Church or might be faved. I anfw. S. Aufiin himfelf granted that thofe among them, who fought the Truth, being ready when they found it to cor- rect their Error were not Hereticks, and therefore notwith- ftanding their Error might be Javed. And tnis is all the Charity that Protefiants allow to Papifis. Therefore the Argument of the Donatifts, is as good as that of the Pafifis againft Protefiants. For the Dona- tifis argued thus, fpeaking to the Catholicks, Tour felves s confefs our Baptifm, Sacraments and Faith good and avail- able. We deny yours to be Jo, and fay there is no Church, no Salvation amongfi you ; Therefore it is fafefi for all to joyn with us. n. S. Aufims words are (cont. lit. petil. 1. i.e. 108.) Pe- tilianus dixit, venite ad Ecclefiam populi & aufugite Tradi- tores, ft per ire nonvultis : Petilian /;«>£, come to the Church Cont.lit^ Pc- ye -peo^Uy and fly from the Traditours, if ye will not be ' damned ; for that ye may know that they being guilty, efteem well of our Faith, behold I Baptise thefe whom they have in- fecled, but they receive thofe whom we have Baptized. Where it to falvation than the Religion of Papifts. 40 r it is plain, that Vetilian by his words makes the Donatifts the Church, and excludes the Catholtcks from falvation abfolutely. And whereas you fay, the Catholicks never yielded that among the Donatifts there was a true Church and hope of Salvation, I fay it appears by what I have alledged out of S.Auftin, that they yielded both thefe were among the Donatifts, as much as we yield them to be among the Papifts. As for D. Potters acknowledgment , that they maintained an error in the matter and nature of if Heretical : This proves them but material Hereticks, whom you do not exclude from poflibility of Salvation. So that all things considered, this argument muft be much more for- cible from the Donatifts again!! thoCatholicks, than from Papifts againft Proteftants, in regard Proteftants grant Pa- pifts no more hope of falvation than Papifts grant Prote- ftants : whereas the Donatifts excluded abfolutely all but their own part from hope of Salvation, fb far as to account them no Chnftians that were not of it : the Catholicks mean while accounting them Brethren, and freeing thofe among them, from the imputation of Herefie, who being in error quairebant cautd Jollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cum invenerint ; fought for truth carefully, being ready when they found it to corretl their errors. 1%. Whereas you fay, That the Argument for the certainty of their Baptifm (becauje it was confefj'ed good by Catholicks, whereas the Baptifm of Catholicks was not confefjed by them to be good,) u not Jo good as yours, touching the certainty of your Salvation grounded on the confejfwn of Proteftants, becauje we confefi there is no damnable error m the dothm or practice of the Roman Church : I Anfwer, no : we confefs no f uch matter, and though you fay fb a hundred times, no repeti- tion will make it true. We profefi plainly, that many dam- nable errors plainly repugnant to the precepts or. Chnfl both Ceremonial and Moral, more plainly than this of Rebaptization, and therefore more damnable, are believ- ed and profeffed by you. And therefore feeing this is the only difparity you can devife, and this is vanifhed, it re- mains that as good an anfwer as the Catholicks made touching the certainty of their Baptifm, as good may we F f f make, 402 The Religion of Proteftants a fafer way make, and with much more evidence of Reafbn, touch- ing the fecurity and certainty of our Salvation. 24. By the way I defire to be informed, feeing you affirm that Rebaptizing thofe whom Hereticks had baptized was a facriledge, and a profejfton of a damnable Herefie, when ;it began to be fb ? If from the beginning it were fb, then was Cyprian a facrilegious profeflor of a damnable herefie, and yet a Saint and a Martyr. If it were not fo, then did your Church excommunicate Firmilian and others, and feparate from them without fufficient ground of Excom- munication or Separation, which is Schiimatical. You fee what difficulties you run into on both fides ; choofe whether you will, but certainly both can hardly be a- voided. 27. What S. Auftin anfwers to the Donatifts argument, fits us in anfwer to yours, as if it had been made for it; for as S. Auftin fays, that Catholicks approve the Doclrin of .Donatifts, but abhor their Herefte of Re-baptization: So we lay, that we approve thofe fundamental and iimple necef- fary Truths which you retain, by which fbme good fouls among you may be faved, but abhor your many Superfli- tionsand Herefies. And as he fays, that as gold is good, yet ought not to be fought for among a company of thieves, and Baptifm good but not to be fought for in the Conven- ticles of 'Donatifts: fo fay we, that the Truths you retain are good, and as we hope fufficient to bring good ignorant fouls among you to falvation, yet are not to be fought for in the Conventicle of Papifts, who hold with them a mixture of many vanities, and many impieties. 50. Obj. But Proteftants do eithtr exclude Hope by De(pair> with the Doclrin that our Saviour died not for all, and that fuch want grace fufficient to falvation ; or elje by vain prefum- ption grounded upon a fantaftical ferfwafwn that they are pre- deft mate, which Faith muft exclude all far and trembling ; and you add, though ftome Proteftants may relent from the rigour of the afore/aid doclrin 3 yet ?ione of them can have true hope while they hope to be faved m the Communion of thofe , who defend fuch Dotfrins, Anft to falvation than the Religion of Papifts. 40 2 'Anf. * All this maybe as forcibly returned upon Papifts, * See numb. 4; as it is urged againft Proteftants ; inasmuch as all Pa- intbekLm. pifts either hold the Doctrine of Predetermination and abfblute Election, or Communicate with thofe that do hold it. Now fiom this Doctrin what is more prone and obvious, than for every natural man (without Gods efpe- cial preventing grace) to make this practical collection ; either I am elected, or not elected; if I be, no impiety poffible can ever damn me : If not, no poffible induftry can ever fave me ? Now whether this disjunctive perfwa- fion be not as likely (as any doctrin of Proteftants) to ex- tinguifh Chnftian Hope and filial fear, and to lead fbme men to defpair, others to preemption, all to a wretchlefs and impious life, I defireyou ingenuoufly to inform me; and if you deny it, allure your (elf, you lhall be contra- dicted and confuted, by men of your own Religion and your own fbciety ; and taught at length this charitable do- ctrin, that though mens opinions may be charged with the abfurd confequences which naturally flow from them, yet the men themfelves are not; I mean, if they perceive not the confequence of thefe ablurdities, nor do not own and acknowledge, but difclaim and deteft them. I add 1 . That there is no Calvinifi that will deny the truth of this propofition, Chrifl died for all, nor tofubfcnbe to that fenfe of it, which your Dominicans put upon it; neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society, deny that they as well as the Qalvi- nifis, take away the diftinction of fufficient and effectual grace, and indeed hold none to be fufficient, but only that which is effectual. 2. Whereas you fay, They cannot make their calling certain by good works, who do certainly be- lieve that before any good works they are juftifiedx and jufiifi- ed by faith alone , and by that faith whereby they certainly be- lieve they are juftified: I anfwer, There is no Proteftant but believes that Faith, Repentance, and univerfal Obe- dience, are neceffary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternal happinefs. This being granted, the reft is but a fpeculativeControverfie, a QuelHon about words which would quickly vaniih, but that men affect not to under* Fff 2 ftand 404 The Religion of Troteftants a fafer way ftand one another. As if a company of Phyficians were in confultation, and mould all agree, that three Medicine and no more were neceflary for the recovery of the Pati- ents health, this were fufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health ; though concerning the proper and fpecifical effects of thefe three Medicins, there fhould be amongft them as many differences as men : So like wife being generally at accord that thefe three things. Faith, Hope, and Charity, are neceflary to falvation, io that whofbever wants any of them cannot obtain it, and he which hath them all cannot fail of it, is it not very evident that they are fufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternal Salvation ? And feeing Charity is a full compre- hension of all good works, they requiring Charity as a neceflary qualification in him that will be faved, what fenfe is there in faying, they cannot make their calling certain by good works ? They know what falvation is as well as you, and you have as much reafbn to defire it: They believe it as heartily as you, that there is no good work but mall have its proper reward, and that there is no poffibility of ob- taining the eternal reward without good works : and why then may not this Do&rin be a fufficient incitement and provocation unto good works ? % 1 . You fay, that they certainly believe that before any good works they are juftified : But this is a calumny. There is no Vroteftanthwt requires to Juftification, Remiffion of fins, and to Remiffion of fins they all require Repentance, and Repentance I prefume may not be denied the name of a good work, being indeed, if it be rightly underftood, and according to the fenfe of the word in Scripture, an effectual conversion from all fin to all holinefs. But though it be taken for meer fbrrow for fins paft, and a bare purpofe of amendment, yet even this is a good work, and therefore Proteftants requiring this to Remiffion of fins, and Remiffion of fins to juftification, cannot with candor be pretended to believe, that they are juftified before any good work. %1. Obj. Yon fay, They believe them] elves juftified by faith alone, and that by that faith whereby they believe them- [elves juftified : Anf. to falvation than the Religion of Papifis. 40 5 Anfw. Some peradventure do fb, but withal they believe that that faith which is alone, and unaccompanied with fincere and univerfal obedience, is to be eiteemed not faith, but preemption, and is at no hand fufficient to juftifica- fixation : that though Charity be not imputed unto juftifi- cation, yet it is required as a neceflary ditpofition in the perfon to be juftified, and that though in regard of the imperfe&ion of it, no man can be juftified by it, yet that on the other Rdo, no man can be juftified without it. So that upon the whole matter, a man may truly and fafely fay, that the Do£trin of theie Proteftants taken altoge- ther, is not aDo(Slrin of Liberty, not aDoftnn that turns hope into prefumption, and carnal fecurity, though it mayjufflybe feared, that many licentious perfons, taking it by halves, have made this wicked ufe of it. For my part, I do heartily wifh, that by publick Authority it were io ordered, that no man mould ever Preach or Print this Do&rin that Faith alone julhfies, unlefs he joyns this to- gether with it, that univerfal obedience is neceflary to fal- vation. And befides that thoie Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of juftification by faith, without the works of the Law, were never read in the Church, but when the thir- teenth Chapter of the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians con- cerning the abfolute neceffity of Charity mould be, to prevent mifpnfion, read together with them. %%. Obj. Whereas you fay, that fome Proteftants do ex- pre fly affirm the former "point to be the foul of the Church, &c. and that therefore they mufi want the Theological vertue of Hope, and that none can have true hope, while they hope to- be faved tn their Communion. I Anfwer, They have great reafon to believe the Do&rin of Juftification by faith only, a poine of great weight and importance, if it be rightly underftood : that is, they have reafbn to efteem it a principal and neceffary duty of a Chriftian, to place his hope of juftification and falvation, not in the perfe&ion of his own nghteoufnels (which if it be imperfed: will not juftifie,) but only in the mercies of God through Chnfts fatisfa&ion : and yet notwith- standing this, nay the rather for this, may preierve them- ielves 4o . A TaMe of Contents, infallible interpretations of Scripture vainly boafted of by the toman Church, c. i. 93,94,95. Whether the denial of the Churches Infalli\nlity-\gavt% men to their pri- vate fpirit, reafon and difcourfe, and what is the harm of it. Prcf. 12. 13.& c .2. no. Traditional Interpretations of Scripture how ill preferved. c. 2. 10. Interpretations of Scripture which private men make for themfelves (not pretending to prefcribe their fenfe to others,' though falfe or feditious, endanger only themfelves. c.z. 122. Allow the Pope or Roman Church to be a decifive Interpreter of Chrifts Laws, and (he can evacuate them, and make what Laws fhe pleafes. Pref. 10.11. &c.2. 1. S.Irenteus's account of Tradition favours not Popery, c. 2.144,145,146. His faying that no Reformation can countervail the danger of a Schifm* explained, c. 5. n. A living Judge to end Controverts about the fenfe of Scripture, not neceffary. c. 2.12,13. tf Chrift had intended fuch a Judge in Religion, he would have named him, which he has not done. c. 2.23. c. 3.69. c. 6*20. Though a living Judge be neceffary to determin Civil caufes, yet not'ne- ceflary for Religious caufes. c. 2. from 14. to 12. incluf. If there be a Judge of Controverfies, no neceflity it ftiould be the Roman Church, c.3.69. Roman Catholicks fet up as many Judges in Religion as Proteftants. c. 2. 116,118, 153. A Judgment of difcretion muft be allowed to every m.i» for himfelf^ about Religion, c. 2. ir. TheProteftantDodlrinof?tt/;^ic4^o», taken altogether, not a licenti- ous do&rin. c. 7. 30. When they fay they are juflified by faith alone, yet they make good workl neceffary to falvation. c. 7. 30. k. Our obligation to kpow any divine truth, arifes from Gods manifeft re- vealing it. c. 3. 19. L. How we are affured in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted. c. 1. 55,5^,57. , To leave a Church, and to leave the external Communion or a Church, is not the fame thing, e. 5. 32, 45, 47. Luther s feparation not like that of the Donatifls, and why. e. 5. 33.LOK Luther and his followers did not divide from th« whole Church, being a part of it, but onely reformed themfelves, forfaking the corrupt part. c. 5. 56. Luthers oppofing himfelf to all in his reformation, no obje&ion againft him. c. 5.89,90. Wearenot bound to juftifie all that Luther faid and did, no more than Fapifts are bound to juftifie what feveral Popes have faid and done. c. 5. in. M. A Tabic of Contents. M. They may be members o( the Catholick Church, that are not united in external Communion, c. 5.9. The Proteftant Do&rin of Merit explained, c. 4.35,36. The Authors Motives to change his Religions, with Anfs^ers to them. *wf. 42. 43. The Faith of Papifts rcfolved at laft into the Motives of Credibility, c. 2. 154. The Mifchiefs that followed the Reformation, not imputable to it, ,.,9,- ^ What make points neceffary to be believed, c. 4. 4, 1 1. No more is neceffary to be believed by us, than by the Apoftles. c. 4.67,70,71,72. Papifts make many things neceffary to falvation, which God never made (b. c. 7. 7. All neceffary points of Faith are contained in the Creed c. 4.73,74. Why fome points not fo neceffary were put into the Creed, c. 4. 7 5,7 6. Proteftants may agree in neceffary points, though they may overvalue fbme things they hold. £.7.34. To impofe a neceffity of profefling known errors, and practicing known corruptions, is a juft caufe of feparation. c. 5.51 ,3640, 5 o, 5 9,60,68,. a A blind obedience is not due to Ecclefiaftical decisions, though our pra- dHfemuft be determined by the fentence of fuperiours in doubtful ca- fes, c. 5. no. A probable opinion may be followed (according to the /tywdw. Doctors) though it be not the fafeft way for avoiding fin. c. 7, 8. Optatus's faying impertinently urged againft Proteftants. c. 5.99,100. Though we receive Ordination and Scripture from a falfe Church, yet we may be a true Church, c. 6; 54. P. Whether Papifts or Proteftants moft hazard their fouls on probabilities. c. 4. 57. What we believe concerning the Perpetuity of the Viiible Church. Anf. Pref.iS. Whether 1 Tim. 3. 15. The Pillar and ground of Truth, belong to Ti- mothy or to the Church, c. 3.76. If thofe words belong to the Church, whether they may not fignifie her duty, and yet that flie may err in neglecting it. c. 3.77. kfoffibility of being deceived, argues not an uncertainty in all we be- lieve, c. 3. 26,50, c, 5. 107, c.6. 47. By joyning in the Prayers of the Rgman Church, we muft joyn in her un- lawful practices, c. 3. 1 1. Preaching of the Word and adminiftring the Sacrament, how they are infeparable notes of the Church, and how they make it viiible. c. 5 . 1 9. Private A Table of Content?. Private Spirit, how we are to underfland it. c. z. no. private Spirit is not appealed to (*. e. to dictates pretending to come from Gods fpiritj when Controversies are referred to Scripture, c.i.u o. Whether one is left to his private fpirit, reafon and difcourie, by denying the Churches infallibility, and the harm of it. Pref. 12,13. & c. 2.1 10. A mans private judgment m..y be oppofed to the publick, when Reafon and Scripture warrant him. c. 5. 109. A probable opinion, according to the Pieman Dodtors, may be followed, though it is not the fafeft way for avoiding fin. c. 7. 8. It's hard for Papiits to refolve,what is zjhjjc>cnt propcfilol the Church. c.3. 54. Protcftants are on the furer fide for avoiding fin, and Papifis on the more dangerous fide to commit fin, fhewed in initances. c. 7. 9. R. Every man by Reafon muft judge both of Scripture and the Church, c. 2. I M, 112, 113, Il8,I2o, 122. Reafon and judgment of difcretion, is not to be reproached for the private fpirit. c2.n0. If men mult not follow theiri^^«,what they are to follow, c.2.1 14,1 1 u Some kind of Reformation may be fo neceflary, as to juftifie feparation from a corrupt Church, though every pretence of reformation will not. c. 5. 53. Nothing is more againft Religion, than ufing violence to introduce it. c. 5.96. The Religion of Proteftants (which is the belief of the Bible;' a wifer and fafer way than that of the Roman Church, fhewed at large, c. 6. from •56. to 72. Incluf. All Proteitants require Repentance to remiifton of fins, and remiifion of fins tojultitication. c. 7. 31. No Revelations known tob* fo, may be rejected as not Fundamental. c. 4. n. A Divine revelation may be ignorantly disbelieved by a Church, and yet it may continue a Church, c. 3. 20. Things equally revealed, may not be fo to feveral perfons. c. 3, 24. Papiits cannot have Reverence for the Scripture, whillt they advance fo many things contrary to it. c.z.i. No argument of their reverence to it, that they have preferved it intire. c. 2. 2. The Roman Church, when Luther feparated, was not the vifible Church, thought vifible Church, and part oftheCatholick. c. 5. 26, 27. The prefent Roman Cl.urch has loft all Authority to recommend what we are to believe in Religion, c. 2. 101. The properties of a perfeel Rule. c.i. 5. 6,7. Whether the Popifh Rule of Fundamentals, or ours is thefafeft. c. 4. 63. s. Right sdminiltration of Sacraments uncertain in the Roman Church, c. 1. from 63. to 68. inclufive. In A Table of Contents. In what fenfe Salvation may be had in the Rgman Church. Anf.pref. 5,7- Salvation depends upon great uncertainties in the /^maii Church, c. v from 63. to 73. incluf. Scbifins whence they chiefly arife, and what continues" them. c. 4. 1 7. Sc/?j/wj may be a Divifion of the Church, as well as from it. c. 5.22-. He may be no Schifmatic^ that forftkes a Church for Errors not damna- ble. Anf. Pref. 2. No Schijm 10 leave a corrupted Church, when otherwife we muft com- municate in her corruptions, c. 5. 25. Not every reparation from the external Communion of the Church, but a caufelefs one, is the fin of Scbifm. c. 5 . 30. They may not be Schifmaticks that continue the feparation from I{pme, though Luther that began it, had been a Schifmatick. c. 5 .4. & c 6. 1 4! The Scripture cannot be duly reverenced by Papifts. c. 2. w. r. The Scripture how proved to be the word of God. c, 4. 53. The Divine Authority of the Scripture may be certain, though it be not felf-evidently certain, that it is Gods word, c 6. 5 r. Books of Scripture now held for Canonical, which the fyman Church formerly rejected, c. 2. 90, 9 1 . Whether fome Books of Scripture defined for Canonical, were not after- ward rejected, c. 3.29. The Scripture in things necefTary is intelligible to learned and unlearn- ed, c. 2. 104, 105, 106. Seme Books of Scn/wre queftioned by the Fathers as well asbyPrbte- ftants. c. 2. 34. The Scripture has great Authority from internal Arguments, c. 2. 47. The Truth of Scripture infpiration depends not on the authority of the I{oman Church. Pref. 14. 8c c. 6. 45. If the Scriptures contain all necefTary truths, Popery is confuted. Pref. 30. to 38. mclufive. The true meaning of Scripture not uncertain in necefTary points, c. 2. 84. A determinate fenfe of obfeure places of Scripture, is not needful, c.z. 127, 150. The fenfe of plain places of Scripture, may be known by the fame means, by which the Papifts know the fence of thofe places that prove ^he Church, c. 2. 150,151, Wod may give means to the Church to know the true fenfe of Scripture, yet it is not necefTary it fhould have that fenfe. c. 2. 93. It is eafier to know the Scripture and its fenfe, than for the ignorant in the Kgman Church which is the Church, and what are her decrees, and the fenfe of them. c. 2. 107, 108, 109. In what Language the Scripture is incorrupted, and the aflurance of it. c 1. 55,56,57. The Scripture is capable of the properties of a perfect Rule. c. 2. 7. In what fenfe we fay the Scripture is a perfect Rule of Faith, c. 2. 8. The Scripture not properly a judge of Controverfies, but a Rule to judge by. c.z. 11, 104, 155. I i i The * A Table of Contents. The Scriptures incorruption more fecured by providence, than the Up* man Churches vigilancy. c. 2. 24- V/ hen Scripture is made the Rule of Controversies, thofe that concern it felf are to be excepted, c. x, 8, 27, 1 56. The Scripture contains all neceflary material objects of Faith, of which the Scripture it felf is none, but the means of conveying them to us. c. 2. 32. 159. The Scnpture muft determine fome Controverfies, elfe thofe about the Church and its Notes are undeterminable, c. 2. 3. The Scripture unjuftly charged with increafing Controverfies and Con- tentions, c. 2.4. The Scripture is a fuificient means for difcovering Herefies. c. 2. 1 27. When Controverfies are referred to Scripture, it is not referring them to the private fpirit, underftanding it of a perfwafion pretending to come from the Spirit of God. c. 2. 1 10. Proteftants that believe Scripture, agree in more things than they differ in, and their differences are not material, c.4. 49, 50. Private men, if they interpret Scriptures amifs and to ill purpofes, en- danger only themfelves, when they do not pretend to prefcribe to others, c. 2. 1 22. The Proteftants Security of the way to happinefs. c. 2. 53. Want of Skill in School- Divinity foolifhly objected againft Englijh Di- vines. Pref.19. The Principles of the Church of Englands feparating from Rome-, will not ferve to juftifie Schifinaticks. c. 5. 71, 74, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86. Socinianifhi and other Herefies countenanced by Romijh Writers, who have undermined the Do&rin of the Trinity. Pref. 17.18. The promife of the Spirits leading into all truth, proves not Infallibili- ty. c.3.71. The promife of the Spirits abiding with them for ever, may be perfo- nal. c. 3. 74. And it being a conditional promife, cuts off the Roman Churches pre- tence to infallibility, c. 3. 75. Want of Succeffwn of Bishops, holding always the fame Dodfrin, is not a mark of Herefie. c. 6. 38, 41. In what fenfe SucceJJion is by the Fathers made a mark of the true Church, c. 6. 40. Papifts cannot prove a perpetual SucceJJion of Profeffors of their Dodlrin, c. 6.41. T. Tradition proves the Books of Scripture to be Canonical, not the Autho- rity of the prefent Church, c. 2. 25, 53, 90, 91, 92. & c. 3.27. Traditional Interpretations of Scripture how ill preferved by the Roman Church, c. 2. 10. & c. 3. 46. No Traditional Interpretations of Scripture, though if there were any re- maining we are ready to receive them, c, 2 88, 89. & c 3. 46. The A Table of Contents. The Traditions diftind from Scripture which Ircene us mentions, do not favour Popery, c.z. 144,145, 146. !*►— The averting unwritten Traditions, though not inconfiftent with the truth of Scripture, yet difparages it as a perfect Rule. c. 1. 1 o. Though our Translations of the Bible are fubjetSt to error, yet our fac- tion is not thereby made uncertain, c. 2. 68, 73. Different Tranflations of Scripture may as well be objected to the Anci- ent Church, as to Proteftants* c. 2. 58, 59. The Vulgar Tranflation is not pure and uncorrupted. c. z. 7 5, 76, 77, 78,79,80. To believe Tranfubflantiation, how many contradictions one miift be- lieve, c. 4. 46. The Dodtrinof the Trinity undermined by Reman Do&ors. Pref. 17,18. The Church may tolerate many things, which fhe does not allow, c.3.47. Gods Truth not queftioned by Proteftants, though they deny points pro- fefled by the Church, c.i.iz. Proteftants queftion not Gods Truth, though denying fome truth re- vealed by him, if they know it not to be fo revealed, c. 3. 1 6. The Truth of theprefent Church, depends not upon the visibility or per- petuity of the Church in all Ages. c. 5.21. & cj. 20. The Apoftles depofiting Truth with the Church, is no argument thatfiie fhould always keep it intire and fincere. c. z. 148. Thepromife of being led into all truth, agrees not equally to the Apo- ftles and to the Church, c. 3. 34. A Trjaloi Religion by Scripture, may well be refufed by Papifts. c. 2, 3. u. Violence and force to introduce Religion, is againft the nature of Reli- gion, andunjuftly charged upon Proteftants. c. 5. 96. [ *• What Vifible Church was before Luther, difagreeing from the Hcman. Anf.Pref. 19. & c. 5.27. That there fhould be always a vifible unerring Church, of one denomi- nation, isnotneceffary. c. 5. 27. The Vifible Church may not ceafe, though it may ceafe to be vifible. c. 5. 13,14,41. The Church may not be Vifible in thePopifhfenfe, and yet may not dif- femble but profefs her faith, c. 5. 18. The great uncertainties falvation in the I{pman Church depends on. c. 2. 63. to73.inclufive. Their uncertainty of the right adminiftration of Sacraments, c. 2. 63. to €8. inclufive. The Churches Vnity, by what means beft preferved. c. 3. 81. c.4. 13, i7>4°- Pretence of Infallibility a ridiculous means to Vmty, when that is the chief queftion to be determined, c. 3. 89. Unity of Communion how to be obtained, c. 4. 3 9, 40. I i i z Vmty A Tabic of Contents. Unity of external Communion not necefTary to the being a Member of the Catholick Church, c. 5. 9. Vniverfality dE zVo&rin, no certain fign that it came from theApo- ftlcs. c. 3. 44. Want of Vniverfality of place, proves not Proteftants to be Hereticks, and may as well be obje&ed againft the fyman Church, c, 6.41, 55/ We would receive unwritten Traditions derived from the Apoftles,'if we knew what they were. c. 3. 46, The Vulgar Translation not pure and incorrupted. e. %. 75, 76, 77, 78, w. The whole Doftrm of Chrift was taught by the Apoftles, and an A* nathema denounced againft any that fhould bring in new doctrins. c. 4. 1 8, The wifdom of Proteftants juftified, in forfaking the errors of the Roman Church, c. 6. 53, 54* The wifdom of Proteftants (hewed at large againft the Papifts, in making the Bible their Religion, c.6. from 56.1071. inclufive. F l$Ci '■$. ADDITIONAL DISCOURSES O F 0lt. £l)tUmg*uoHl) NEVER BEFORE PRINTED. Imprimatur. Ex ts£Jib. Lambeth. Jun. 14. 1686. GUIL. NEED H AM R R. in Chrifto P.ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant, a Sacr. Domefticis. LONDON, Printed for Richard Chifwell at the Rofe and Crown in S. Pauls Church- Yard, 1687. CONTENTS. L A Conference betwixt Jir.Chillingworth jfj^ and Mr. Lewgar, whether the Roman Church be the Catholick-Church, W all out of her Communion Heretkks or Schifmaticks. p. i . II. ADifcourfe againfi the Infallibility of the Ro- man Church, with an Jnfwer to all thofe Texts of Scripture that are alledged to prove it. p. 1 6. HI. A Conference concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Church; proving that the prefent Church of Rome either errs in her worshiping the Blejfed Virgin ; or that the Ancient Church did err in condemning the Collyridia# a* He- reticks. p. 4 1 a IV. An Argument drawn from Communicating of Infants , as without which they could not be Javed againji the Churches Infallibility. p. 68. V. An Argument againft Infallibility , drawn from the DoHrin of the Millenaries. p.8o» VI. A Letter relating to the fame fubjecl. p. 8 p. VII. CONTENTS. VII. An Argument againjl the Roman Churches Infallibility, taken from the ContradiBions in their VoBrin of Tranfubftantiation. p. «* twice for if^j>«^^pd fuch like, not to be imputed to the Author. A CON- A CONFERENCE BETWIXT Mr. CHILLI^Cgj^ORTH AND Mr. L E W q A R. Thejis. f'| * HE Church of Rome (taken difFufively for all Chriftians communicating with the JL, Bifliop of Rome) was the Judge of Contro- verfies at that time., when the Church of England made an alteration in her Tenents. Argu. She was the Judge of Controverfies at that time, which had an Authority of deciding them. But the Church of Rome at that time had the Authority of deciding them. Ergo. ~Anfa>. A limited Authority to decide Controverfies ac- cording to the Rule of Scripture and Univerfal Traditi- on, and to oblige her own Members (ib long as fhe evi- dently contradicted not that Rule) to obedience I grant fhe had : but an unlimited, an infallible Authority, or fuch as could not but proceed according to that Rule, and fuch as fhould bind ail the Churches in the Wcrld to Obedience (as the Greek Church) I fay (he had not. Queft. When your Church hath decided a Controverfie, Idelire to know whether any particular Church or per- ion hath Authority to reexamine her dccifion, whether B fte 'A CONFERENCE betwixt {he hath obferved her Rule or no ; and free himfelf from the obedience of it, by his or her particular judgment? Anfw. If you underftand by your Church, the Church Catholick, probably I fhould anfwer no : but if you un- derftand by your Church,that only which is in Subordina- tion to the See of Rome% or if you underftand %. Coun- cil of this Church, I anfwer, yea. Arg. That was the Catholick Church, which did abide in the Root of Apoftolick Unity : But the Church of Rome at that time was the only Church that did abide in the Root of Apoftolick Unity. Ergo, Qu.efl. What mean you by Apoftolick Unity ? Anfw. I mean the Unity of that Fellowlhip wherein the Apoftles Lived and Died. £uefr. Wherein was this Unity ? Anfw. Herein it confided, that they all profefTed one Faith, obeyed one Supream Tribunal, and communicated together in the fame Prayers and Sacraments. Solut. Then the Church of Rome continued not in this Apoftolick Unity ; for it continued not in the fame Faith, wherein the Apoftles Lived and Died : for though it retained fb much (in my judgment) as was eflential to the being of a Church, yet it degenerated from the Church of the Apoftles times, in many things which were very profitable; as in Latin Service, and Communion in one kind. Argu. Some Church did continue in the fame Faith wherein the Apoftles lived and died : But there was no Church at that time which did continue in the Apoftles Faith befides the Roman Church. Ergo. Anfw. That fbme Church did continue in the Apoftles Faith in all things neceflary, I grant it : that any did con- tinue in the Integrity of it, and in a perfect conformity with it in all things expedient and profitable, I deny it. Queft. Is it not neceflary to a Churches continuing in the Apoftles Faith., that fhe continue in a perfed confor- mity with it in all things expedient and profitable ? Anfw. A perfect conformity in all things is neceflary to a perfect continuance in the Apoftles Faith ; but to an Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgan an imperfect continuance, an imperfed conformity is fufficient ; and fuch I grant the Roman Church had. 3$ueft. Is not a perfed continuance in the Apoftles Faith neceflary to a Churches continuance in Apoftolick Uni- ty? Afw. It is neceflary to a perfed continuance in Apo- ftolick Unity. Argu. There was fome one company of Chriftians at the time of 'Luther s rifing, which was the Catholick Churchy But there was no other company at that time befides the Roman : Ergo, the Roman at that time was the Catholick Church. Anfw.^ There was no one company of Chriftians, which in oppofition to and Exclufion of all other companies of Chriftians was the Catholick Church. Argu. If the Catholick Church be fome one company of Chriftians in opposition to and^ exclufion of all other companies , then if there was ibme one company, fhe was one in oppofition to and exclufion of all other com- panies : But the Catholick Church is one company of Chri- ftians in oppofition to and exclufion of, &c Ergo, There was then fome one company which was the Catholick Church in oppofition to and exclufion of all other com- panies. The Minor proved by the Teftimonies of the Fathers, both Greek and "Latin, certifying that they underftood the Church to be one in the fenfe alledged. i . If this Unity which cannot be feparated at all or di- vided, is alfo among Hereticks, what contend we farther ? Why call we them Hereticks, S. Cypr. Epifi. 75. 1. But if there be but one Flock, how can he be ac- counted of the Flock, which is not within the number of it? Id: Ibid. 3. When Parmenian commends one Church, he con- demns all the reft; for befides one, which is the true Catholick, other Churches are efteemed to be among He- reticks, but are not. S. Optat. lib. 1 . 4. The Church therefore is but one, this cannot be 2- mong all Flereticks and Schifmaticks. Ibid. B 2 v You 4 A CONFERENCE betwixt 5. You fay you offer for the Church, which is one ; this very thing is part of a lie to call it one, which you have divided into two : Id : Ibid. 6. The Church is one, which cannot be amongft us and amongft you ; it remains then, that it be in one only place. LI: Ibid. 7. Although there be many Herefies of Chriftians, and that all would be called Catholich, yet there is al- ways one Church, &c. S. Angufi. de util. credend.c. 7. 8. The queftion between us is, where the Church is, whether with us or with them, for ihe is but one. Id : de unit at. c. 1. 9. The proofs of the Catholick prevailed, whereby they evi&ed the Body of Chnft to be with them, and by con- fequence not to be with the Donatifis ; for it is manifeft that ihe is one alcrne. Id. Collat. Cart hag. lib. 5 . 1 o. In illud cantic. 6. 7.. There are 60 Queens and 80 Concubines and Damejels without number , hut my Dove is one, &c. He faid not, my Queens are 60, and my Con- cubines, 8ca but he faid my Dove is but one; becaufe all the Seels of Philofophers and Herefies of Chriftians aie none of his ; his is but one, to wit, the Catholic k Church, dyc. S. Epiphan. in fine Panar. i£. A man may not call the Conventicles ofHercticks (I mean Marcionites9 Manichees, and the reft) Churches ; therefore the Tradition appoints you to lay, I believe one Holy Catholick Church, &c. S. Cyrill. Catech. 1 8. And thefe Teftimonies I think are fufficient to Ihew the judgment of the Ancient Church, that this Title of the Church one, is dire&ly and properly exclufive to all com- panies befides one ; to wit, that where there are diverfe profeffions of Faith, or diverfe Communions, there is but one of thefe, which can be the Catholick Church. 'Upon this ground I deiire fome company of Chriftians to be named, profeffing a diverfe Faith, and holding a diverfe Communion from the Roman, which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers riling : and if no other in this fenfe can be named, than was fhe the Catholick Church at that time, and therefore her judgment to be retted in, and Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. and her Communion to be embraced upon peril of Schifin and Herefie. Mr. ChiUingworths Anfwer. Upon the fame ground , if you pleated, you might defire a Proteftant to name fbme Company of Chnfti- ans, profeding a d;verfe Faith, and holding a diverfe Communion from the Greek Church , which was the Ca- tholick Church at the time of Luther s rifing; and feeing he could name no other in this fenfc. concludes that the Greek Church was the Catholick Church at that time. Upon the very fame ground you might have concluded for the Church of the Abyffmes, or Armenians, or any other fbcietv of Chridians extant before Luther s time. And fee- ing this is fb, thus I argue againft your ground. I. That ground which concludes indifferently for both parts of a contradicts^ mud needs be falfe and deceitful, and conclude for neither part : But this ground concludes indifferently both parts of a contradiction ; quod non bene feciffet abfcindere ab unit ate corporis y See. §. 4. But ho wfbever the cafe of Excommunication may be, thedivifion of external Communion which I intend- ed, and the Fathers fpake of in the alledged Authorities, was that which was made by voluntary feparation. 5$. 5. Whereby the Church (before one Society) is di- vided into feveral diftind Societies., both claiming to be the Church ; of which Societies fb divided, but one can be the Catholick ; and this is proved by the Authorities al- ledged; which Authorities muft not be anfwered by diC proving them, as he does (for that is to change his Adver- fary, and confute the Fathers fayings, inftead of mine) but by fhewing their true fenfe or judgment to be otherwife than I alledged it. §. 6. To his demand upon the places alledged I An- fwer, that I do not build my whole faith of this conclufion upon the Authority of thofe Fathers ; for I produce them, not for the Authority of the thing, but of the Expofition. The thing it felf is an Article of the Creed, Vnam Catho* Ucam ; grounded in exprefs Scripture, Columba mea unica : but becaufe there is difference in under/landing this Pro- phcfie, I produce thefe Authorities, to fhew the Judgment of the Ancient Church how they underftood it ; and the proper anfwer to this is either to jhew, that thefe words were Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 1 5 were not there, or at lead, not this meaning ; and fo to ftew their meaning out of other places more pregnant. §. 7. And I promife, that whenfoever an equal con- fent of Fathers can be (hewed for any thing, as I can ftiew for this., I will believe it as firmly as I do this. §. 8. But this is not the Anfwerers part, to propound doubts and difficulties, but to fatisfie the proof ob,e&ed. §. 9. And if this courfe be any more taken, I will fave my felf all farther labour in a bufinefs fo likely to be endlefs. £. 1 q. His fecond Anfwer to the places is wholly im- pertinent; for therein would he difprove them from watching a neceffity of refling in the judgment of the Roman Church ; whereas I produced them only to (hew, that among feveral Societies of Chriftians, only one can be the CathoUck ; and againft this his fecond Anfwer faith nothing. $. 11. In his third Anfwer he makes fbme fhew of re- ply to the Authorities themfelves ; but he commits a dou- ole Error : One, that he impofes upon me a wrong con- clufion to be proved, as will appear by comparing my conclufion in my Paper, with the conclufion he would appoint me. £. 1 a. Another, that he impofes upon the Authorities a wrong Interpretation, no way grounded in the words themfelves, nor in the places whence they were taken, nor in any other places of the fame Fathers, but meer- ly forged out of his own Brain. For fiift, the places do not only fay , that the Societies of Hereticks and Schifmaticks are no part of the Church ; but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one ; and they account Societies divided, which are either of a diverfe Faith or a diverfe Communion. Neither do they define Hereticks or Schifmaticks in that manner as he does. §. 13. For an Heretic k in their Language is he, that oppofes partinacioufly the Common Faith of the Church : and a Schifmaticks he that feparates from the CathoUck Communion ; never making any mention at all of the caufe, §.14, H J CONFERENCE .'. v . 1 4. And if his definition ot a Sc I nuy Rand, rainlv there was no Schfmstici ever in World, - le arc at this day: for none did, none . es 6 urate without ilx: ot Error, or unlaw - rulnets in the Conditions of the Churches Communion. 5, 1 v And lb I expect both a fuller and direcler anfwe; to my Argument without excuriions, or diverlions into any other matter, rill the judgment of Antiquity be clear- ed in this point. Mr. Cl ■ y tbs Anfirer, Ad J. 1. The . [ : my Argument, you lay, is ve- :r wreak, being grounded upon a falie Suppohtion, That a Proteftant could name no other Church profetling a dive ie Faith From the Greek, which was the Cat ! Church: And your reaion is, becaule he might name the Rm.:?t. But in earneit, Mr. Lewgar, do }ou think that a Proteftant remaining a Proteitant, can efteem the Rmm*M Church to be the Catholick Church? or do you think to put tricks upon us, with taking your pro- pofition one while m .-.nother while mjenfm : For ir your meaning was, that a Proteftant not remaining, but ceaimg to be a Proteftant, might r the R m for Ac k ; lb I lay alio to your difcourfe, that a Proteftant ceaiing to be a Proteftant, might name k to be the C.ubchck Church j and if there were any :o find out one Church ot one denomination, as Grtekj the Rsman, the Abyfline, which cue muft be the t .-no realon, but he might pitch upon rreek Church, as well as the R:»;.:r, ; I am lure your difcourle proves nothing to the contrary. In Ihort, thus I lay, if a G (hould go about to prove to aP ftant, that his Church is the ( '.-. . iving (as you do forth. I ) lomeonewas lb before LMtbcr, and you can name no other, therefore ours is lb : Whatibever may be aniwered to him, may be anlwered to you. For as you lay, a Proteftant, ceaiing to be a Proteftant, may name to him the Romany fo I lav, a Proteftant, cea»ing^ z a Proteftant, may name to you the Greets* If you Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Le wgai . I c you fay, a Protefhnt, remaining a Proteftant, can name no other but the Roman, for the Catbolick ; I may ( very ridiculoufiy I confefs, but yet as truly) fay, he can name no othei D t the Grecian. If you fay, he can no: ft the Greek Church neither, remaining a Proteftant ; I fay like wife, neither remaining a Proteftant, can he name the Roman for the Catbolick So the Argument is equal in all refpects on born Gdes ; and therefore either co:i. ides for both parts 'which is impoffible, for then contradicti- ons mould be both tj l of elfe (which K certain) it con- cludes for neither. And : . I fay, ::d you build on/rh at before Luther fb:ne Church of one tk mination was the Catbolick (if it were true, as it is mod fal(e) would not prove your intent. It would deftroy p. haps our Church, but it would not bi.: .prove perad venture, that we mull not be Proteftanrs, but it will be far from proving that we muft be Fapi[ts. I after we have left being Proteftanrs 'I tell you again that you may not miftakey there is vet no neceffity of being Pafifis ; no more than if I go out of England, there is a neceffity of going to Rome. And thus much to fhew the poornefs of your ground, if it were true. Now in the iecond place, I fay it is falls, neither have you proved any thing to the contrary. Ad £. 2. You lay, the Authorities you have produced, fhew to any that confide: them well, That the Church could never be divided into mo: e Societies than one ; and you mean (I hope) one in external Communion, or elfe you dally in ambiguities; and then I lay, I have well con- sidered the alledged authorities, and they appear to me to fay no fuch thing; but only, that the Societies of Here- ticks and Schifmaticks are no true members or the Church: Whereas I put the cafe or two fuch Societies, which were divided in external Communion by realbn of fbme over- valued difference between them, and yet were odd of them Heretical or Sehifmatical. Tothis I know you could not anfwer, but only by faying, That this fuppo- fition was impoffible ; viz*. That of two Societies dividqd in external Communion, neither fhouldbe Heretical noc Sehifmatical^ 16 A CONFERENCE betwixt Schifmatical ; and therefore I defired you to prove by one convincing Argument, that this is impoffible. This you have not done, nor I believe can do ; and therefore all your places fall fhort of your intended conclufion ; and if you would put them into Syllogiftical form., you mould prefently fee you conclude from them Sophiftically in that fallacy, which is called A ditto fecundum quid, ad di- ctum Simpliciter. Thus, — No two divided Societies, whereof one is. Heretical or Schifmatical, can be both members of the Catholick Church : therefore fimply no two divided Societies can be fb : the Antecedent I grant, which is all that your places lay, as you mall fee anon; but the confequence is Sophiftical, and therefore that I deny : It is no better nor worfe than if you mould argue thus; No true divided Societies, whereof one is Out-la w- ed and in Rebellion, are both members of the fame Com- monwealth ; therefore fimply no two divided Societies. But againft this you pretend, That the alledged places fay not only, that the Societies of Hereticks and Schifma- ticks are no parts of the Church ; but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one : And they account Societies divided, which are either of a diverfe Faith, or of a diverfe Communion : This is that which I would have proved, but as yet I cannot fee it done. There be Eleven Quotations in all ; feven of them fpeak expref ly and formally of division made by Hereticks and Schif- maticks, viz. i . % , 4. 7. 9, 10,11. Three other of them, C viz,. 5, 6. 8. ) though they ufe not the word, yet Mr. Lewgar knows they fpeak of the Donatifis, which were Schilmaticks ; and that by the relative particles you and them are meant the Donatiffis. And laftly, the fecond, Mr. Lewgar knows, fays nothing but this, That an Here- ticks cannot be accounted of that one Flock, which is the Church. But to make the moft of them that can be : The firft faith, the Unity of the Church cannot be feparated at all, nor divided. This I grant, but then I fay, every differ- ence does not in the fight of God divide this Unity : for then diverfity of Opinions mould do it ; and fb the Jejuits and Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 1 7 and Dominicans fhould be no longer members of the fame Church. Or if every difference will not do it, why muft it of necetlity be always, done by difference in Commu- nion, upon an infufficient ground, vet miftaken for fuf- ficient ? (for fiich only I fpeak of.) Sure I am, this place fays no fuch matter. The next place faies, the Flock is but one; and all the reft, that the Church is but .one, and that Hereticks' and Schifmaticks are not of it ; which certainly, was not the thing to be proved, but that of this one Flock, of this one Church, two Societies divided without juft caufe in Communion, might not be true and lively members; both in one Body Myftical in the fight of God, though divided in Unity in the fight of men : It is true indeed, whofoever is fhut out from the Church on Earth, is likewife cut off* from it before God in Heaven : but you know it muff be Clave non errante ; when the caufe of abfciflion is true and fufficient. Ad § . ; . If you fay fb, you fay no more than the Fathers : but what cvafions and tergiverfations are thefe ? Why do you put us ofFwith ifs and ands ? I befeech you tell me, or at leaft him that defires to reap fome benefit by our Conference," directly and Categorically, Do you fay fo, or do you fay, it is not fo? Were the Excommuni- cated Churches of Afia ftill members of the Catholick Church (I mean in Gods account) or were they not ? but all damned for that horrible Herefie of celebrating the Fcafl: of Eafter upon a ciiverfe day from the Weftern Churches ? If you mean horicftly and fairly, anfwer di- rectly to this Queftion, and then you (hall fee what will come of it. Allure your felf, you have a Wolf by the Ears : If you fay they were, you overthrow your own conclufions, and fay that Churches divided hi Communion may both be members of the Catholick. If chey were not ; then lhall we have Saincs and. Martyrs in Heaved, which were no members of the Catholick Roman Church. As for Ircnaus his fw G&wnleivi and Rvff.nus his Ab- -fcindere ab imitate corporis- they imply no mO'*e but this at the moil ; That Victor {quantum in (e fuit) did cut them olf from the External Communion of the CathoUck Church • D fup- iS rA CONFERENCE betwixt fuppofing, that for their Obftinacy in their Tradition, they had cut themfelves off from the internal Gommunion of it: but that this fentence of Vittors was ratified in Heaven, and that they were indeed cut off from the my- ftical Body of Chrift, fo far was Irenaus from thinking, that he, and in a manner all the other Biftiops,reprehended ViBor for pronouncing this Sentence on them, upon a caufe fb inliifficient : which how they could lay, or pot fibly think of a Sentence ratified by God in Heaven, and not reprehend God himfelf, I defire you to inform me : and if they did not intend to reprehend the Sentence ofv God himfelf, together with Vittors, then I believe it will follow unavoidably, that they did not conceive, nor be- lieve Victors Sentence to be ratified by God ; and confe- quently did not believe, that thefe excommunicated Churcnes were not in Gods account true members of the Body of Chrift. Ad £. 4. And here again, we have another fiibterfuge, by a Verbal diftin&ion between Excommunication, and voluntary feparation : As if the feparation, which the Church of Rome made in Vittors time from the Afian Churches , were not a voluntary feparation ; or as if the Churches of Afia, did not voluntarily do that which was the caufe of their feparation; or as if (though theyfepa- ted not themfelves indeed, conceiving the caufe to be inefficient) they did not yet remain voluntarily leparatedj rather than conform themfelves to the Church of Rome : Or tartly, as if the Grecians of Old, or the Proteftants of Late, might not pretend as juftly as the Afian Churches, that their Separation too was not voluntarily, but of ne- ceffity ; for tnat the Church of Rome required of them un- der pain of Excommunication fuch conditions of her Com- munion, as were neither necellary nor lawful to be per- formed. Ad i. 5. And here again the matter is ftreightned by another limitation. Both fides flay you) mtift claim to be the Church : but what then, if one of them only claim (though vainly j to be the Church, and the other content it (elf with being apart of it? Thefe then k leems for Mr. Chillingworth and ^r.Lewgar. la (for any thing you have faid to the contrary) may be both members of the Catholick Church : And certainly this is the cafe now, between the Church of England and the Church of Rome : and for ought I know, was between the Church of Rome and the Church of Greece ; For I believe, it will hardly be proved, that the Excommuni- cation between them was mutual ; nor that the Church of Greece efteems it fclf the whole Church, and the Church of Rome no Church but it felf a found member of the Church, and that a corrupted one. Again, whereas you fay, the Fathers (peak of a volun- tary feparation ; certainly they Ipeak or any Separation by Hereticks ; and fuch were (in Victors judgment) the Churches of A(ia3 for holding an opinion contrary to the Faith, as he efteemed : Or if he did not, why did he cut them from the Communion of the Church ? But the true difference is, The Fathers fpeak of thofe, which by your Church are efteemed Hereticks, and are fo ; whereas the Afian Churches were by Victor efteemed Hereticks, but were not fo. Ad £. 6. But their Authorities produced mew no more, than what I have mewed ; that the Church is but one in exclusion of Hereticks and Schifmaticks ; and not that two particular Churches divided by miftake upon fome overvalued difference, may not be both parts of the Ca- tholick. i Ad £. 7. But I defire you to tell me, whether you will do this, if the Dodrines produced and confirmed by fuch a confent of Fathers, happen to be in the judgment of the Church of Rome> either not Catholick, or abfblutely Heretical. If you will undertake this, you mall hear farther from me : But if, when their places are produ- ced, you will pretend (as fome of your fide do) that fure- ly they are corrupted, having neither reafon nor jhew of reafon for it ; unlefs this may pafs for one (as perhaps it may, where reafons are foarcej that they are againft your Doctrine ; or if you will fay, they are to be interpreted according to the pleafure of your Church, whether their words will bear it or no ; then I mail but loie my Labour; D 2 for 20 'A CONFERENCE betwixt for this is not to try your Church by the Fathers, but the Fathers by your Church. The Do&rines which I undertake to jufhfie, by a greater confent of Fathers than here you produce., for mftanee (hali be thefe. i . That Gods Election fuppofeth prefcience of mans Faith and perfeverance. i. That God doth not predetermine men to all their Actions. ;. That the Pope hath no power in temporalties over Kings either directly or indirectly. 4. That the Biihop of Rome may Err in his pubiick de- terminations of matters of Faith. 5. That theB. Virgin was guilty of Original fin. 6. That the B. Virgin was guilty of actual fin. 7. That the Communion was to be adminifhed to the Laity in both kinds. 8. That the reading of the Scripture was to be denied to no man. 9. That the Opinion of the Millenaries is true. 10. That theEucharift is to be adminiftred to Infants. 11. That the fiibftance of Bread and Wine remains in the Eucharift of her Coniecration. 1 1. That the Souls of the Saints departed enjoy not the Vifion of God before the Laft day. 1;. That at the day of judgment, all the Saints fhall pafs through a purging fire. All thele propositions are held by your Church either Heretical, or at leaft not Catholical ; and yet in this pro- mife of yours you have undertaken to believe them as firmly, as you now do this, That two divided Societies cannot be both members of the Catholick Church. Ad §. 8. Is it not then the Anfwerers part to fhew, that the proofs pretended are indeed no proofs? and doth not he prove no proofs (at leaft in your mouth) who undertakes to fhew, that an equal or greater number of the very fame witnefles is rejected by your felves in ma- ny other things ? Either the content of the Fathers, in any Age or Ages, is infallible, and then you are to re- ject Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. z i ]e<5t ic in nothing ; or it is not fb, and then you are not to urge it in any thing : As if the Fathers Teftimonies againft us were Swords and Spears, and againft you bufc rufhes. Ad f. 9. In effe£r. as if you fhould fay, If you an fiver not aslpleafe, I will difpute no longer. Bat you remem- ber the proverb, will think of it. Occaftonem quarits qui cupit difcedere. Adj. 10. I pray tell me. Is not Therefore a note of an Illation, or a conclufion ? And is not your Ian: therefore, this, Therefore her judgment is to be reft ed in? which though it be not your firft conclufion, yet yours it is, and you may not declaim it : and it is fb near of kin to the former (in your judgment I am fore) that they muft ftand or fill together: therefore he that (peaks pertinently for the difproving of the one., cannot (peak impertinently to- wards the difproving the other : and therefore you can- not fb ibift it off, but of neceflity you muft anfvver the Argument there urged, or confefs it ingenuoufly to be un- anfwerable. Or if you will not anfwer any thing, where the con- tradiction of your fir ft conclufion is not in terms infer- red, then take it thus : If $ Cyprian and S.Auftin did not think it neceilary in matters of Faith to reft in the judg- ment of the Roman Church and the adherents of it; Then either they thought not the Catholick Churches judgment neceflary to be refted on, or they thought not that the Catholick Church. But the Antecedent is true, and unde- niably proved fb by their Actions, and the confequence Evident : Therefore the confequent muft be true in one or other part : But you will not fay the former is true ; it remain? therefore, the latter mult be, and that is That S. Aufiin and S. Cyprian did not think the Church of Rome and the adherents of it to be the Catholick Church. Ad j. it. But l tell you now, and have already told you, that in our difcourfe before Mr. Sktnrmr and Dr. Sheldon Ianfwered your Major, as then you framed your Argument, as now your Minor thus — If you underftand by 22 A CONFERENCE betwixt by one company of Chriftians,0»e in External Communion, I deny your Major. For I fay, that two feveral Societies of Chriftians, which do not externally communicate toge- ther, may be both parts of the fame Catholick Church : and what difference there is between this, and the conclu- fion I told you, you Ihould have proved, I do not well un- ftand. Ad §. 12. And is it poffible you fhould fay fo, when every one of the places carry this fenfe in their forehead, and 7 of the 1 1 in terms exprefs it That they in- tended only to exclude Hereticks and Schifmaticks from being parts of the Church : For if they did not, againft whom did they intend them ? Pagans lay no claim to the Church, therefore not againft them : Catholicks they did not intend to exclude : 1 know not who remains befides, but Hereticks and Schifmaticks. Befides the frequent op- pofition in them between One Church on the one fide, and Hereticks and Schifmaticks; who fees not, that in thefe places they intended to exclude only thefe pretend- ers out of the Churches Unity? Laftly, whereas you fay, that the places fay That the Church cannot be divided ; and that they account thofe divided who are of adiverfe Faith, or a diverfe Com- munion : I tell you, that I have read them over and over, and unlefs my Eyes deceive, they fay not one word of a diverfe Communion. Ad §. i 3. Whereas a Heretick'm your Language, is he that oppofeth pertinacioufly the common Faith of the Church ; • In mine He is fiich a one, as holds an Error againft Faith withObftinacy : Verily a monftrous difference between thefe definitions. To oppofe and hold againft (T hope) are all one : Faith and the common Faith of the Church , fure are not very different : pertinaci- eujly and -with Obflinacy, methinks might pafs for Synoni- nious ; and feeing the parts agree fb well, methinks the Total fhould not be at great hoftility. And for the de- finition of a Schifmaticky if you like not mine (which yet I give you out of a Father) I pray take your own ; and then fhew m£, (if you mean to do any thing,) that where- foever Mr. Chilling worth and Mr. Lewgar. %% fbever there are two Societies ofChriftians, differing in external Communion, one of them moft be of neceffity either Heretical, or Schifmatical in your own fenfe of thefe words. To the contrary, I have (aid already, fand fay it now again, that you may not forget it) the Roman and the Afian Churches in Victors time, the Roman and the African in S. Stephens time differed in external Communi- on; and yet neither of them was Heretical; For they did not oppofe pertinacioufly the commonFaith of theChurclr. Neither of them was Schifmatical ; for they did not fepa- rate ( never making mention of the caufe at all) but were feparated by the Roman Church, and that upon fome caufe, though it were not fufficient. Ad £. 14. The Donatifi did fb (as Facundus Hermianenfis teftifies :) but you are abufed, I believe, with not diftin- guiming between thefe two — They did pretend, that the Church required of them fbme unlawful thing among the conditions of her Communion : and they did pretend, that it was unlawful for them to communicate with the Church. This I confeft they did pretend ; but it was in regard of fbme Perfbns in the Church, with whom they thought it unlawful to communicate : But the former they did not pretend, (I mean while they continued meer Schifmaticks,) viz. That there was any Error in the Church, or impiety in her publick fervice of God : And. this was my meaning in faying, — A Schifmatick is he, which feparates from the Church without pretence of Er- ror, or unlawfulnefs in the conditions of her Communi- on : Yet if I had left out the term unlawfulnefs, the defi- nition had been better, and not obnoxious to this Cavil- lation ; and fb I did in the fecond Paper which I fent you for your direction; which if you had dealt candidly, you ihould have taken notice of. Ad §. 1 5. I have replied (as I think) fully to every part and particle of your Argument. Neither was the Hiifory of S. Cyprians and S. Auftins oppofirion to the Church of Rome an excursion or diversion ; but a cleer demonftacion of the contradictory of your concluhon : (viz,. That the. Roman Church, 6cc, and therefore her judgment not to be re- ftcd A CONFERENCE betwixt led upon) For an anfwer hereto I fhall be very importunate with you; and therefore, if you deiire to avoid trouble, I pray come out of my debt as foon as may be. If it be laid, that my Argument is not contradictory to your conclulion ; becaufe it mews only, that the Roman Church with her adherents was not in S. Cyprians or S. Au- ftins time the Catholick Church, but was at the time be- fore Luther ; I fay, to conclude the one is to conclude the other. For certainly, if it were then at Luthers time fb, it was always fb ; if it was not always, it was not then : for if it be of the elTence, or neceilary to the Church (as is pretended) to be a Society of Chriftians joyned in Com- munion with the Church and Bifhop of Rome ; then did it always agree to the Church ; and therefore in S. Cypri- ans and S. Aufi'ms time, as well as at Luthers riling : if it were not always, particularly not in S. Cyprians time, of the Eflence or neceilary to the Church to be lb; then it was impoffible the Church mould acquire this Elience, or this property afterwards, and therefore impof iible it mould have it at the time of Luthers rifing. Necefia- num efi3 quod non aliquando weft, aliquando nan inefty ali- cui ineft, alicui non me ft ; Jed quod fempsr & omni. Arid. Poft. Analyt. Again, every Sophifter knows, that of Particulars no- thing can be concluded ; and therefore he that will fhew, that the Church of Rome and the adherents of it was the Catholick Church at Luthers rifing ; Hemuft argue thus; It was always fb, therefore then it was fb : Now this Antecedent is overthrown- by any Inftance to the contrary; and fb.the firft Antecedent being proved falfe, the firft confequcnt cannot but be falfe ; for what ilea (on can be imagined, that the Church of Rome and the Adherents of it, was not the whole Catholick Church at S. Cypnans time, and was at Luthers riling ? If you grant fas I think you cannot deny J that a Church divided from the Communion of the Roman, may be ftill in truth and in Gods account a part of the Catholick (which is the thing we fpeak of: ) then I hope Mr. Lewgars Argument from Unity of Communion is fallen to the ground ; and it will be no good Plea to lay, Some Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. i^ Some one Church, not confiding of divers Communi- ons, was the Catholick Church at Luthers rifing : No one Church can be named to be the Catholick Church, but the Roman : Therefore the Reman Church was the Catholick at Lu- thers riling. For Mr. Lewgar hath not nor cannot prove the Major of this fyllogifm certainly true ; but to the contrary I have proved, that it cannot be certainly true, by fhewing di- vers instances, wherein divers divided Communions have made up the Catholick Church : and therefore not the dividing of the Communions, but the caufe and ground of it, is to be regarded, whether it be juft and Efficient, or unjuft and inefficient. Neither is the- Bifhop or Church of Rome> with the Adherents of it, an infallible Judge thereof; for it is evi- dent, both he and it have erred herein divers times; which I have evinced already by divers examples, which I will not repeat ; but add to them one confefled by Mr. Lewgar himfelf in his difcourfe upon the Article of the Catholick Church, pag. 84. S. Athanafius being excommunicated (though by the a whole Church) yet might a How by the remain a member of Chrifis body, (not vifble, for that is whole Church, impojjible, b that a per [on cut off from vijible Communion, when himfelf though unjufily, flwuld be avifible member of the Church, ^OaiScomm ^ by invifible Communion, by reafon of the invalidity of the fen- cated fhll with tence ; which being unjufi^ u valid enough to vifible excijion, divers other but not farther. Parts of it ? J h What not to them who know and believe him to be unjufily Excommunicated ? E IL %6 A CONFERENCE betwixt II. A Difcourfe againfi the Infallibility of the Ro- man Church, with an Anfwer to all thofeTexts of Scripture that are alleged to prove it. TH E Condition of Communion with the Church of Rome, without the performance whereof no man can be received into it, is this. That he believe firmly and with- out doubting, whatfbever that Church requires him to believe. It is impoffible that any man fhould certainly believe any thing, unlefs that thing be either evident of it felf (as that twice two are four ; that every whole is greater than a part of it felf) or unlefs he have ibme certain reafbn (at lead fomc fuppofed certain reafbn) and infallible guide for his belief thereof. The Do&rins which the Church of Rome requireth to be believed are not evident cf themjelves ; for then every one would grant them at firft hearing without any fur- ther proof. He therefore that will believe them, nnift have fome certain and infallible ground whereupon to tu Id his belief of them. There is no other ground for a mans belief of them, efpeciall-y in many points, but only an afiurance of the Infallibility of the Church oiRome. Now this point of that Churches Infallibility, is not evi- dent of it felf; for then no man could chufe but in his heart believe it without farther proof Secondly, it were m vain to bring any proof of it, as vain as to light a Can- dle to fhew men the Sun. Thirdly, it were impoffible to bring any proof of it, feeing nothing can be more evident , than that which of it felf is evident : and nothing can be brought in proof of any thing which is not more evident than that matter to be proved: But now ex- perience teacheth that millions there are, which have heard talk of the Infallibility of the Rowan Church, and yet do not believe that the defenders of it do not think it either vain or impoQible to go about to prove it ; and from hence. k follows plainly, that this point is not evident of it felf Neither Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 2.7 Neither is there any other certain ground for any mans belief of it : or if there be., I defire it may be produced, as who am ready and moll willing to fubmit my judgment to it, fully perfwaded that none can be produced,, that will endure afevere and impartial examination. If it be faid, The Roman Church is to be believed infalli- ble becaufe the Scripture fays it is Co. 1. I demand how ihall I beaflured of the Texts that be alledged, that they are indeed Scripture, that is, the Word of God ? And the anfwer to this muft be either becaufe the Church tells me fb,or fbme other: if any other be given,then all is not finally refblved into, and built upon that Churches Authority; and this anfwer then I hope a Protectant may have leave to make u(e of, when he is put to that penllous Queftion ; How know you the Scripture to be the Scripture ? If the anfwer be, becaufe the Church tells me fa: my re- ply is ready ; that to believe that Church is infallible, be- caufe the Scriptures fay fo : and that the Scripture is the word of God, becaufe the fame Church fays fo, is nothing elfe but to believe the Church is infallible, becaufe the Church faysfb, which is infallible. 2. I could never yet from the beginning of Gene/is 3 to the end ofthz Jpocalypfe, find it written fo much as once in exprefs terms, or equivalently, that the Church in fub- ordination to the Sea of Rome fhall be always infallible. ; . If it be faid, that this is drawn from good confequence from Scripture truly interpreted ; I demand, what certain ground have I to warrant me, that this confequence is good and this interpretation true : and if anfwer be made, that reafbn will tell me fb : I reply, 1 . That this is to build all upon my own reafbn and private interpretation. 2. I have great reafbn to fear, that reafbn aflures no man, that the infallibility of the Church of Rome may be deduced from Scripture, by g;ood and firm confequence. 4. If it be faid, that a Confent of Fathers do fb inter- pret the Scripture. I aNnfwer, 1 . That this is molt falfe and cannot without impudence be pretended, as I am ready to juftifie to any indifferent Hearer. 2. I demand, who fhall be fudge whether the Fathers mean as is pretended E 2 If 28 'A CONFERENCE hetwixt If it befaid, reafbn will tell me fb: I fay, i. this is falfe. i. This is again to do that which is objected to Proteftants for fuch a horrid crime, that is, to build all finally upon reafbn. If it be faid, they are fo interpreted by the Catholick Church; I demand, whether by the Catholick Church be meant that onely that is in fubordination to the Bilhop of Rome, or any other with that, or belides that. If any other, it is fal(e and impudent to pretend that they fo underftand the Fathers or Scriptures : If that only, then this is to fay, that that Church is infallible, becaufe it may be deduced from Scripture that it is fb; and to prove that it may be deduced from Scripture, becaufe the Fathers fay lb ; and to prove' the Fathers do fay and mean fo, becauie the Church of Roma fays they do fo. And then what a ftir and trouble was here to no pur pole ; why was it not rather laid plainly at the beginning ; The Church of Rome is certainly infallible, becauie ihe her felf fays fb ; and fhe muft fay true becauie fhe is infallible : and that is as much to fay as unlefs you grant me the Queftion, I neither can nor will difpute with you. If it is faid, indeed the Fathers do not draw this do- &rin from Scripture, but yet they affirm it with a full con- fent,as a matter of Tradition. I reply, i. That this pre- tence alfo is falfe, and that upon tryal it will not appear to have any colour of probability to any who remembers, that it is the prefent Roman Church, and not the Catholick Church whofe infallibility is 'here difputed. i. I demand, who mail be judge, whether the Fathers do indeed affirm this or no: If reafbn, then again we are fallen upon that dangerous Rock, that all muft be refblved into private realbn : If the Church I ask again, what Church is meant ? If the Church of the Grecians or AbyJJlncs or Proteftants, or any other but the Roman, it is evident they deny it. If the Church of Rome, then we are again very near the head of fhe Circle. For I ask, how ihall I be aflured this Church will not err and deceive me in interpreting the Fathers ; and tr Anfwer muft be either none, or this, that the Churcl infallible.. Qbj. Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 18 Obj. If it be faid, that the Infallibility of the Roman . Church would yield the Church fo many commodities, and that the want of an infallible Church to. guide men in the way to Heaven, would bring Co many mifchiefs upon the world, that it cannot be thought but that God out of his love to men, hath appointed this Church as an infallible guide to all other Churches ; feeing it is (6 necciTary there mould be fome fuch guide, and fo evident there is no other. Anf. I anfwer, that this argument would ferve the Church of Greece, or England, or Geneva, to prove it felt" infallible, and the guide of all other Churches, would they but take upon them to be Co. For every one might fay for it felf; It is neceflary there mould be fbme Guide; it is evident there is no other ; Ergo I am appointed by God to be that Guide. The fame argument any man might ufe, to make himfelf Monarch of any popular State : for firft ho might reprefent unto them the commodities of a Monar~ chy,and the mifchiefs of a Democracy: then he might fay, That God fiirely out of his Love to them hath appointed fbme remedy for their inconveniences : And laftly, that he hath ordained no other to redrefs them but himlelf, and then conclude, that he alone muft of neceffity be the man appointed to rule over them. I anfwer Secondly, that here alio we muft refblve all into Rcafbn and the private. Spirit, or that we are ftill in the Circle. For I demand, how do you know that thefe pretended commodities are to be compaffed, and thefe pretended mifchiefs are to be avoided, only by the Infalli- bility of the Church of Rome or fbme other Church, and not by any other means which God hath provided. If you fay, reafbn tells you fo ; I fay i . This is to make reafon your laft and loweft foundation. 2. I afliire vou Reafbn tells me no fuch matter, and yet I know that lam as willing to hear it as you are. If you fay, the Church tells you fo, and (he is infallible ; this, I fay, is to prove the Church infallible becaufe (he is fb. Thirdly, I demand, How it is poffible you ihould know, that thefe pretended commodities might not be gained, and j0 A CONFERENCE betwixt and the fe mifchiefs which vou fear avoided, without any affiftancc of the Church of 'Rome's infallibility, if all men in the world did believe the Scripture, and live according to it, and would require no more of others, but to do (o ? If you fay, that notwithstanding this, there would be no unity in Doclrm : I anfwer i. It is lmpoflible you mould know this; considering that there are many places in Scn-N ptnre, which do more than problably import, that the want of piety in living, is the caufe of want of unity in believing. 2. That there would be unity of Opinion in all things neceiTary : and that in things not necellary unity of Opinion is not neceilary. But laftly, that notwith- standing differences in thefe things of lefler importance, there might and would be unity of Communion, uni- ty of charity and affection, which is one of the greateft: bleffings which the world is capable of; abfolute unity of opinion being a matter rather to be defi red than hoped for. Obj. Againft this it has been obje&ed, that the Scripture cannot be the guide, becaufe many men have ufed their beft endeavors to follow it, and yet have fallen, fbme into Arianifm, others into Velagianifm, others into other damna- ble Herefies, and how can I fecure any man, but he may do the like? An]'. To this I anfwer, by diftinguilhing the perfbns which are pretended to have made ufe of this Guide, and yet to have fallen into Herefie, that they were either iuch as did love the truth fincerely and above all things, as did feek it diligently and with all their power, to this in- tent that they might conform their belief and life unto it; fuchas following S. Pauls dire&ion, did firfttry all things deliberately, and then chofe what in their conference they thought was bell : or they were fuch as for want of the love of the truth, God fuffered to fall into ftrong delufi- ons, to fall to a falfe Religion, becaufe they brought not forth the fruits of the true; to make fhipwreck of their faith, becaufe they had caft away a good confcience ; to have their Eyes blinded, and their light taken away, be- caufe they made not the right ufe of it, but were idle and un- Mr. Chillingworth and Afr.Lewgar. ;i unprofitable, and fee their hearts upon vanity, and had on- ly a form of Religion., but denied the effect of it in their lives and conversions; in a word, fuch as were betrayed to their Error, and kept for ever in it, either by negli- gence in ieeking the Truth, or unwillingnefs to find it, or by fome other voluntary iin : And for thefe I dare not flatter them with hope of pardon ; but let me tell you, it is not the error of the underftanding, but the fin of their will that truly and properly damns them : But for the for- mer lam confident, that nothing is more contumelious to the goodnefs of God, than to think that he will damn any fuch; for he mould damn men that truly love him, and defire to ferve him, for doing thac-which all things confidered, was impoflible for them not to do. Obj. If it is laid, that pride of their own underftanding made them not fiibmit to the Church of Rome, and to her guidance, and that for this, being a voluntary fin, they may be juftly damned. Anf. lanlwer, that whether the Church of Rome be the guide of all men is the Quefhon, and therefore not to be begged but proved : that the man we fpeak of is very wil- ling to follow this Guide, could he find any good ground to believe it is his Guide; and therefore the reafbn he fol- lows her not, is not pride but ignorance : that as it is hu- mility to obey thole whom God hath let over us, fo it is credulity to follow every one that will take upon him to lead us : that if the blind lead the blind, not only the leader but the follower mail perifh : Laftly , that the prefen: Church of Rome pretends very little and indeed nothing of moment, to get the office of being Head and Guide of the Church, which Antichrift when he cometh, may not and will nojt make uie of,, for the very fame end and purpofe; and therefore he had reafbn, not^to be too Hid- den aifd precipitate, in committing himfelf to the conduct of the Pope, for fear of miftaking Antichrift for the Vi car of Chnft. Obj. But in all Commonwealths, it is neceflary there mould be not only a Law for men to live by, but al(o a li- ving and fpeaking Judge to decide their differences ariiing about . }i A CONFERENCE letwixt about the various Interpretations of the Law, and other- wife Controversies would beendlefs: therefore iffuch a judge be fo neceflary in civil affairs, for the procuring and prelerving our temporal peace and happinefs ; how much more neceilary is he, for the deciding of thofe Contro- verfies, that concern the faving and damning of our fouls for ever. Anf. Hereunto I anfwer, i. That if it were as evident and certain that God hath appointed the Pope or Church of Rome to be the Guide of Faith, and Judge of Contro- verfies, as that the King hath appointed fuch a one to be Lord Chief Juftice, the having of fuch a Guide would be very available, for to preferve the Church in Unity, and to conduct mens fouls to Heaven: but a Judge that has no better title or evidence to his place, than the Pope has to that which he pretends to, a Judge that is doubtful and juftly queftionable whether he be the Judge or no, is in all probability likely to produce clean contrary effects, and to be himfelf one of the Apples offtrife, one of the greateft fubje&s of Controverfie, and occafion of diflentions. And to avoid this great inconvenience, if God had in- tended the Pope or Church of Rome for this great Office, certainly he would have (aid fb very plainly and very fre- quently ; if not frequently, certainly fometimes, once at lealt he would have laid ib in exprefs terms : but he does not fay fb, no notfo much as once, nor any thing, from whence it may be collected, with any fiire or firm confe- quence : therefore if it be not certain, certainly it is very probable he never meant fb. Again, in Civil Controverfies the cafe can hardly befo put, that there mould be any neceflity that the fame man fhould be Judge and Party : but in matters of Religion, wherein all have equal intereft, every man is a party, and engaged to judge for temporal refpe&s, this way or that way, and therefore not fit to be a Judge. But what then if he which was with fb much clamor and fb little reafbn Touched, for the Infallibility of the Roman Church, do tell you plainly, there is no living Judge on Earth appointed by God j to decide the Controverfies anfing amongft Chriftians ; Mr. Chillingworth and Mr, Lewgar. jj Chriftians ; nor no way to determine them but Scripture. His words are exprefs and formal, and need no other com- mentary but a true interpretation. Optatus Melevit. lib. 5. ad princip. Vos dicitis, Licet ; nos, non Licet : inter Vefirum Licet, & noftrum non Licet, nutant & remigant anima populorum. Ne- mo veins credat, nemo nobis ; omnes content toft homines fumus. JS>u*rendi funt judices : ft Chriftiani, de utrdque parte dari non poJJ'unt : de foris quarendus e[t Judex. Si Paganus, non pot eft nojje Chriftiana Secreta : Si Judams, inimicus eft Chriftiani Baptifmatis. Ergo in terns de hac re nullum poterit reptriri judicium : de ccelo quserendus eft Judex. Sed ut quid pulfamus coelum, cum habeamus hie in Evangelio Teft amentum ? Quia hoc loco recle pojjunt terrena cceleftibus comfarari ; tale eft, quod quivis hommum habens numerofos filios : His, quamdiu prefens ejt, ipfe imperat fingulis ; non eft adhuc necejjarium Teft amentum. Sic & Chriftus, quamdiu prajens in terrtsfuit (quamvis nee modo dejit) pro tempore quicquid necejjarium erat, Apoftolis imperavit. Sed quomodo terrenus pater cum [e in con- finio fenjerit mortis, timens ne poft mortem Juam ruptd pace liti- gent fratres, adhibit is teftibm and he that dejftifeth you dej]>ifeth me. But this will not do you any fervice, unlefs of favour we grant, that you here, is you of the Church of Rome ; and but very little if that be granted : for then every Bifliop, every Prieft muft be Infallible. For there is not the meaneft of the MefTengers of Chnft, but this may be verified of him, That he that heareth him, heareth Chrift, and he that defpifeth him, defpifeth Chrift. They urge out of John 14. ver. 1 5-, 1 6. I will ask my Father, and he will give you another Pa- raclete, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spi- rit of Truth. But here alfb, whai warrant have we, by 70* tounder- ffand the Church of Rome : whereas he that compares v. 16. with Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Le wgar. 4 r with this, {hall eafily perceive, that our Saviour fpeaks on- ly of the Apoftles in their own perfbns ; for there he (ays going on in the fame difcourfe. The Holy Ghoft whom the Father will fend in my name, he frail teach you all things, and' bring all things to your remembrance, whatfoever I have [aid to you : which cannot agree but to the Apoftles themfelves in perfbn ; and not to their Succeflbrs, who had not yet been taught and therefore not forgotten any thing, and therefore could not have them brought to their remem- brance. But what if it had been promifed to them and their Succeflbrs ? had they no Succeflbrs but them of the Roman Church? this indeed is pretended and cried up., but for proofs of it, defiderantur. Again, I would fain know whether there be anycer tainty, that every Pope is a good Chnftian, or whether he may not be in the fence of the Scripture, of the World? r If not, how was it that BeUarmme mould have caufe to think, that fuch a rank of them went fucceffively to the Devil ? III. A Conference, concerning the Infallibility of the Roman Church : Proving that the pre- fent Church o/Rome either errs in her wor flip- ping the BUffed Virgin Mary, or that the Aici- ent Church did err in condemning the Collyridi- ans as Hereticks. I. DewW.T"T7"Hether the Infallibility of the Roman VV Church, be not the foundation of their Faith which are members of that Church ? Anfw. The Infallibility of the Church is (not the foun- dation but) a part of their Faith who are members of the Church. And the Roman Church is held to be theCh''.r~hj by all thofe who are members of it. G Refly. 4* 'A CONFERENCE betwixt Reply. That which is the laft Reafon, why you believe the Scripture to be the written Word of God and unwrit- ten Traditions his unwritten word ; and this or that to be the true fen& of Scripture, that is to you the foundation of your Faith, and fiich unto you is the Infallible Authority of the Roman Church. Therefore unto you it is not only a part of your faith, but alfo fuch a part as is the founda- tion of all other parts. Therefore you are deceived if you think, there is any more oppofition between being a part of the faith and the foundation of other parts of it ; than there is between being a part of a houfe and the foundati- on of lt.But whether you will have it the foundation of your faith,or only a part of it/or the prefent purpofe it is all one. 2. Demand. Whether the Infallibility of the Roman Church be not abfblutely overthrown, by proving the p re- fern Roman Church is in error, or that the Ancient was ? Anfw. It is, if the Error be in thofe things wherein flie is affirmed to be infallible ; iw&. in points of Faith. Reply. And this here fpoken of, whether it be lawful to offer Tapers and Incenfeto the honour of the Blefled Vir- gin, is I hope a Qaeftion concerning a point of Faith. 3. Demand. Whether offering a Cake to the Virgin Ma- ry, be not as lawful, as to offer In cenfe and Tapers and di- vers other oblations to the fame V lrgin ? Anfw. It is as lawful to offer a Cake to her honour as Wax-Tapers, but neither the one, nor the other may be offered to her, or her honour, as the term or objed of the Action. For to (peak properly, nothing is offered to her or to her honour, but to God in the honour of the Blefled Virgin. For Incenfe, it is a foul flander that it is offered any way to the Blefled Virgin ; for that incenfing which is ufed in the time of Mafs, lseverunderflood by all forts of people to be directed to God only. Reply. If any thing be offered to her, me is the Objed of that oblation ; as if I fee water, and through water fbmething elfc, the water is the object "of my fight, though not the laft object. If I honour the Kings Deputy, and by him the King, the Deputy is the obje&ofmy adion, though not the final objedt : And to fay thefe things may be Mr. Chillingworth and Afr.Lewgar. 4; be offered to her,but not as to the object of the action, is to fay they may be offered to her, but not to her. For what elfe is meant by the object of an action, but that thing 011 which the action is imployed, and to which it is directed ? If you fay „ that by the object of the action, you mean the final object only wherewith the action is termina- ted ; you mould then have f poken more properly and di- ftinctly, and not have denied her limply to be the object of this action, when you mean only ibe is not fuch a kind of object : no more than you may deny a man to be a living creature, meaning only that he is not a horfe. Secondly, I fay, it is not required of Roman Catholicks when they offer Tapers to the Saints, that by an actual in- tention they direct their action actually to God; but it is held fufficient, that they know and believe that the Saints are m Subordination and near Relation to God, and that they give this honour to the Saints becaufe of this relati- on : And to God himfelf rather habitually and interpreta- tive, than actually, exprefly and formally. As many men honour the Kings Deputy, without having any prefent thought of the Kin^ and yet their action may be interpre- ted an honour to the King, being given to his Deputy, only becaufe he is his Deputy, and for his relation to the King. Thirdly, I fay, there is no reafbn or ground in the world, for any man to think, that the Collyridians did not chufe the Virgin Mary for the object of their worfhip, ra- ther than any other Woman or any other Creature, meerly for her relation to Chnft ; and by confequence there is no ground to imagine, but that at leaft habitually and inter- pretative, they directed their action unto Chnft, if not actually and formally. And Ergo, if that be a fufficient defence for the Papifts, that they make not the Bleiled Virgin the final object of their worfhip, but worfhip her not for her own fake, but for her relation untoGhrift: Ifyiphamm furely did ill to charge the Collyridians with He- reiie, having nothing to impute to them, but only that he was informed, that they offered a Cake to the honour of the Blefled Virgin, which honour vet they might, and with- out queftion did give unto her for her relation unto Chrifr. , G z and 44 rA CONFERENCE betwixt and lb made her not the laft objed and term of their wor- fliip: and from hence it is evident, that he conceived the very a&ion it felf, fubftantially and intrinfically malitious, I e. he believed it a iin that they offered to her at all : and lb by their a&ion put her in the place of God., by giving unto her this worihip proper to God; and not that they terminated their action finally in her, or did in very deed think her to be a God, and not a Creature. But tojfeak properly, you fay, nothing is offered to her or to her honour > but to God in honour of the Blejjed Virgin. Belike then if through Henly I go from hence to London, I may not be laid properly to go to Henly, but only to Lon- don : or if through Water I lee the Sand, I may not be properly (aid to lee the Water, but only the Sand. Away with fuch fhifting Sophiftry ; either leave your practice of offering to Saints if it be naught, or colour it not over with fuch empty diftin&ions if it be good: Chrift faith to his Apoftles in regard of their relation to him, He that heareth you heareth me> and he that dejftijeth you defpifeth me : and yet who doubts, but they that heard the Apoftles did properly hear them, a nd they that defpifed them«did properly defpile them, though their action ftaid not in them, but reached up to Heaven and to Chrift himfelf. You pray to Saints and Angels, though you do not terminate your prayers in them ; and yet I doubt not but your prayers to Saints, may be as properly called prayers, as thole you make to God himfelf. For though thefe be of a more excellent na- ture than they, yet do they agree in the general na- ture, that they are both prayers. As though a Man be a more excellent living creature than a horfe, yet he agrees with him in this, that both are living creatures. But if nothing be properly offered to her or to her honor, why do you in your fixth Anlwer lay, you may offer any thing to the Virgin Mary, by way of prelents and gifts by thedo- drin of the Roman Church? Certainly he that offers by wayofgiftorprefent, offers as propei ly as he that offers by way of facrifice ; as a horfe is as properly a living crea- ture as a Man. But Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 4j But if it were fo as vou fay (which is mod falfe) that you did not properly offer to the Blefled Virgin, but to God in honour of her ; yet in my judgment, this would not qualifie or mend the matter but make it worfe. For firft, who taught you, that in the time of the Gofpel (after the accompli fhment of the prediction, facrifice and offering thou wouldeft not but a body haft thou prepared me : after this In- terpretation of it in the Epiftle to the Hebrews, He ta- keth away the firfi that he may efiabliJJj the fecond) that it is ftill lawful to offer Tapers or Incenfe to God. Secondly, in my underftanding, to offer to God in honour of the Virgin, is more derogatory from Gods honour, than to offer to her in the honour of God. For this is in my ap- prehenfion to fubordinate God to her, to make her the terminating and final object of the a&ion ; to maKe God the way and her the end, and by and through God to conveigh the worfhip unto her. But for incenfe 3 you fay, it is a foul flander > that it is offered any way to the Bleffed Virgin. To this I anfwer- that your imputing flander to me, is it ielfa flander : For n In your 5 th Anfwer, you have given a clear intimation that you have never been out of Eng- land : fb that you cannot certainly know, what is the practice of your Church in this point beyond Sea. And he that lives amongft you, and has but half an Eye open and free from prejudice, cannot but fee, that the Roman Religion is much more exorbitant in the general pra&ice of it, than it is in the Dc&rine publifhedin Books of Con- troverfie ; where it is delivered with much caution and moderation, nay cunning and diflimulation that it may be the fitter to win and engage Profelytes ; who being once enfhared, though they be afterwards ftartled with ftrange and unlookt-for practices, yet a hundred to one, but they will rather ftifle their Confcience, and dalh all fcruples againft the pretended Rock of their Churches Infallibility, and blindly follow thofe guides, to whole Conduct they have unadvifedly committed themfelves^ than come off again with the fhame of being reputed weak and inconftant : fo terrible an Idol is this vain no- thing, the opinion and cenfure of foolifl) men. But 46 'A CONFERENCE betwixt But to return again to yon, I fay your ignorance of the pra&ice of the Roman Church beyond the Seas, does plainly convince that you have rafhly and therefore flan- deroufly charged me with the Crime of (lander. As for your reafbn you add, confider it again, and you will lee it is worth nothing. For what if incenfing in time of Mafs, be underftood by all forts of People to be dire&ed to God alone (which yet you cannot poffibly knowj yet this I hope hinders not, but that in Proceilions, you may Incenfe the Images of the Saints, and confequently (ac- cording to your Do&rine) do this Honour to the Saints themfelves reprefented by the Images. I my felf (unlefs I am very much miftaken) was prefent when this very thing was done to the Pi&ure of Saint Benet or Saint Gregory in the Cloyfter of Saint Vedaftus in the Monastery in Doway. But indeed what a ridiculous inconfequence is it, to think that Wax Tapers may lawfully be offered to the Saints and incenfe may not : or if Incenfe may not, which you feem to difclaim as impious, that Wax Tapers may. 4. Demand. Whether the Collyridiatff 'were not condemn- ed as Hereticks by the Ancient Church.Firft,for offering a Cake upon a Anniverfary Feaft to the Blefled Virgin. Se- condly for that they did this not being Pnefts. Anj-iv. The Collyridians were condemned as Hereticks for two things. Fir ft, for imploying Women in the place and Office of Pnefts to offer a Cake (not in the nature iVtinncmen 0f a gift or prefent,) but in the nature of a a Sacrifice,, Virgims Colly- wmcn was never lawful for any but b men, and thofe c ndemquan- rnn/prr.rpJ dam Sacrifice contested. rent. Epiph. h^r.78. Offerimt panem in nomen Maria?, cmnes autem fane participant • — b Deo cnim ab aterno nulla tenus mulier Sacrificavit. Idem ha?ref. 79. c Diaconijfarum or do eft in Ecclefta, fed non ad Sacrificandum^ nam neaue Diaconis conQreditum eft, ut aliquod mfterium perficiant. Id. Ibid. *vid.fup.lit- Secondly, for offering this a Sacrifice "V^^ in the tera (a) name of the Blefled Virgin, i. e. unto her, her felf diredfc- Mm2T£m ty and terminatively, as an ad of * Divine Worfhipand ado- Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 47 adoration , due unto her, as unto a Sovereign c Power and p^ftantes. id. Deitv. Ibid. And a- gam : I^evera virgo erat honor at a, fid non ad adoraticnem nchis data fid ipfk adoransDeum. And a- gain.-Now ut adoretur Virgo, nec^it Deum ham efjiceret&c. Sit in hon.re Marla;Pate r & FiUus(3 Spiritus S. adoretur, Mariam nemo adoret.Deo debetur hec myfterium Id. Ibid. c Pro Deo hanc intr odnc ere flat uer ant. Id. Ibid. Revera Santh/m erat Maria; corpus non tamen Dcus. And again. Mulierem earn appellavit Joh. 2. Velut prophetans : (3 ne aliqui nimium admirati Sanftum, in hanc hecrefin dilabantur. And again. Non tamen alitergcnita efl prceter hominis naturam, Jed ficut omncsex femine^virs & utero Mulicris. Id. Ibid. Reply, it feems then thefe Women might offer this Cake to the honour and name of the Virgin Mary, if they had done it as a Gift or Vrefent and not as a Sacrifice. Epiphanius then fiirely was too hafty to condemn them, being informed of nothing, but that they offered a Cake unto her. Methinks before he had put them in his Ca- talogue, he mould have enquired whether they offered this Cake as a Gift only, or as a Sacrifice. Certainly had the practice of offering to Saints by way of gifts, been the pra&ice of the Church in his time, he would not have been fb uncharitable, as to condemn that action as impious and Heretical, which might have received fo lawful and pious a conftrucStion. But he, good man, it feems could not conceive a difference between a Sacrifice, and the offering a Creature by way of Confumption to the Honour of that to which it is offered. The fub- tle Wits of our times I hope have found out another de- finition for it, and I mall under/land by you what it is. But if you can find no other, then certainly, though fetting up a Picture or hanging up a Leg or Eye or Ear in memory of fome miraculous cure, obtained by a Saints interceflion, would be a Gift or Vrefent only^ yet offering of Incenfe, or burning a Taper in the honour of a Saint, daub the matter how you will, will be without Quedion a. Sacrifice. If you fay, that there may be fuch an offer- ing and yet no Sacrifice ; I would know then, how you would prove that the Collyridians offering was indeed a Sacrifice? All that Epiphanius fays of them is but this ■ Tanem proponent & in Mar\ by Sacrifico, I fhould not have much condemned him, yet to do it when the Qiiefrion is, whether this their offering, con felled to be an offering, were in propriety of fpeech aSa- Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 49 a Sacrifice, to do it for Ends, to ftiift off a convincing ar- gument, to palliate over afoul matter, by putting a verbal difference where there is none indeed, and all that you may, Imperitos rerum in fraudetn illicere ; that is But I forbear you. But Secondly it is pretended, [they offered this Sacrifice «** oyopct m the name of the BleJJ'ed Virgin : i. e. unto her, her Jelf, directly and terminately as an all of Divine Worflnp and adoration due unto her, as unto a Sovereign Tower and Deity. ,] And to colour and countenance this itrange glofs, many places are quoted out of Epiphanius, which I will examine in order as they lie. The firft place is, mortuis cultum Divinum pr aft antes ^ where your meaning is, I believe, that Epiphanius lays the Collyridians did fo : but the truth is he fays only, mortuos colentes ; as Petavius tranflates it : and therefore here once again you help the Dice ; yet if he had (aid fb, why mould you rather from cultum divinum colled: that, that they thought her God, than from mortuis, that they thought her Dead, and therefore certainly not a God ? Certain- ly this can be no warrant to you, that Epiphanius charges them with lb thinking : For Prot eft ants you know impute to Papifts that they give to Saints cultum divinum, and yet they do not impute to them the Herefie of thinking, that the Saints are Sovereign Powers and Deities : But as S. Paul accufeth the Gentiles, for that knowing God to be God, they did not •worflnp him as God, fo on the other fide, Proteftants condemn Papifts, and Epiphanius for ought we can fee hitherto, might condemn the Collyridians, for that knowing the Bleffed Virgin not to be God, they yet worfhip'd her as God. That is, gave her that worfhip which is Gods own peculiar, which yet they might do, not becaufe they thought her God, but becaufe this wor- fhip, which was indeed proper to God, they might think not proper, but communicable to fuch Creatures as were high in his favour. The next place is ■ — Revera virgo erat honorata, fed mn ad adorationem nobis data, fed ipfa adorans Dcum, &c. H I jo "A CONFERENCE betwixt I anfwer that the &c perhaps conceals fomething more pertinent to yotir purpofe, but in the Words fet down there appears to me juft nothing; for I can frame out of them no other Syllogifm but this. Whatfbever Epipbanius in this place fays is not to be adored, that the Colly vidians thought to be God. But Epipban. here fays the Virgin is not to be adored. Ergo. The Collyridians thought her God. Of this Syllogiirn I deny the Major proportion, and I believe mall flay as long for a proof of it, as I have done for an anfwer to fome other difcourfes, which be- ing written in a few days, have waited now with a long- ing expectation for a promiied anfwer many months. If you fay, you would conclude from thefe Words, that they did adore her and therefore thought her God, I have an- iivered already, that they might do this, not becaufe they thought her God, but becaufe they thought Creatures high in Gods favour capable of adoration. The next place — — Ncn ut adoretur Virgo , nee ut deum banc efficeret > — tells us that Chnft took Hem of the Vir- gin, not that fhe mould be adored, nor to make her God : And this you think imports, that they conceive her God. Yet if I mould, condemning your Practice of offering Ta- pers to her, life the fame Words and fay, - — Cbrifl took Flejh of the Virgin, not t bat (he (hould be adored, or to make ber God : You would not yet conceive that I charged you with the Herefie of believing her God, but only of the impiety of giving to her that worfhip which was peculiar to God : and why then might not Epipbanius, having like occafion, life the fame words to the Collyridians upon the fame, and no other ground. The next place Mariam nemo adoret, Deo debetur hoc myfierium, — is fb far from proving your imagination, that it fhongly confirms my aflertion, that Epipbanius did not impute to the Collyridians the opinion, tbat the Virgin Mary was God. If I mould fay to a Vapifi, the BleiTed Virgin is not to be^worfhiped with the worihip of Hyper dau- Jia, becaufe fiich worfhip is due only to the Mother of God, would they not fay I were mad and argued againfr. my Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. j r my felf, for that they believed me was the Mother of God. By like reafon, if Epiphanies knew, that the Gollyndians believed the Virgin Mary to be God, he reafoned as wild- ly againfl himfelf in faying ■ Mariam nemo adoret, Deo debetur hoc myjterium For it is very true (might they have (aid) this lervice is due to God alone, but you know our Belief and Profeffion that me is God, and therefore by your own rule capable of this worfhip. The next place is — Pro Deo banc introduce™ ft u due- runt. And may not this be juftly faid to any man, who to any thing belides God, gives that worfhip which is proper and peculiar unto God ? What if to man that mould teach - • The Pope had power to difpenfe with men for the keeping of Gods Laws I mould {ay, pro Deo Pa- pam introducis. Mull I of neceffity mean that that man did verily believe the Pope not a man but a Sovereign Power and Deity ? S. Paul tells us that Covetoujnefs is Ido- latry; he tells us of fbme, whofe God is their Belly ; is it therefore confequent, that every covetous man doth in- deed believe his Gold, and every Glutton his Belly , to be indeed a Sovereign Power and Deity? Away with fiich fopperies. Whofbever loves, or- fears, or trails in any thing more than God, may yet be juftly laid to make that his God, and wholbever mould worfhip any Creature with that external worfhip which God has appropriated to him- felf, might jullly be faid to bring in that Creature for God. S. Paul tells us of fbme, who in words prof (Jed God, yQt fact is negabant, in their deeds deny him : fo thefe on the contrary, may in their words deny this Creature to be God, and in their Hearts not think it lb, yet feeing their adions to it are as if it were God, they may be juftly charged, that with their deeds they make this Creature God. Qui fin^it Sacros ex auro & marmore -vultus, Non facit tile Deos, qui colit tile facit. What if upon coniideration of the ft rangely enormous worfhip which Papifis give to the Virgin Mary ({wear- ing by her name, making Vows unto her, offering Ta- pers to her Honour, attributing a kind of Communica- H i ted 5* A CONFERENCE betwixt ted omnifcience and almoft omnipotence to her, as I can eafily make good they do, partly out of the Offices of their Church, partly out of private mens Works, but let out with Licence and approbation) what I fay, if upon this confederation I ihould affirm, pro Deo if [am introduce™ conantnr. Would it therefore be confequent, that I muft impute this Blafphemy to them, that they believed and taught her to be a Sovereign Power and Deity ? I trow not. And therefore Epphanius might fay the fame of the lCollyridians conlidering their Action, without any intent of imputing to them any fiich opinion. This Petavim fure faw well enough, and therefore (as I fhall hereafter de- monftrate to the Eye) to countenance his Marginal An- notation, Quidam Mariam Deum ejje crediderunt} he cun- ningly abufes and perverts Epiphanies his Text with falfe Translation. Sic pugnat, Sic eft metuendus Ulyffes. The next place is, revera fanclum erat Maria? corpus non tamcn Deirs. (The Body of Mary was truly holy> but ?iot a God.) As much to the purpofe as — Tityre tu patulte for what if Epiphanies fay, fhe is not God, and therefore not to be adored, does it therefore follow that the Collyri- dians believed fhe was a God ? He that knows Logick or fenfe, cannot but know, that he that will confute an Ad- verfanes concluflon, muft choofe fiich principles to do it, to which his Adverfary contents, and out of that which he grants prove that which he denies ; or if his firft pro- portions be not agreed to by his Adverfary, he muft prove them in the end by fuch as are agreed to ; or elfe he does nothing. And therefore feeing Epiphanies thinks it fuffi- cient for the convincing of the CoUyndians3 of the un- lawfulnefs of the practice, to fay, fhe was not God : it is evident, that fb far was he from imputing to them the belief that fhe was God, that he feems rather to take the contrary for a principle agreed upon between them, which it was fufficient to fay and fiiperfluous to prove. This anfwer I thought good to make, while I conceived that here Epphamm had denied the Perfbn of the Virgin Mary to be God ; but after upon better confederation I found that Tetavws had abuied me with adding to £/>/- phantus Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 5 ; fhanius of his own — - Illafuit and that Epipbanius fays not here, non tamen Deus ( foe was not God ) of her Terfon, but of her Body ; and as yet I do not understand that you impute to the Collyridians the belief, that her Body was God. The next place Mulierem earn appellavity 8cc. fays no more but this ; that our Saviour calls the Blcfled Virgin Woman, that no man might think her any thing more than a Woman, as it were prophetically refuting the Schifms and Herefies which would be in the World 2 left lbme out of excefs of admiration of her, might fall into the Dotage of this Herefie. Thus far Eptphanius : but then the Queftion will be, what was this Herefie. You fay the belief that me was God. I fay, not that me was God, but that they might lawfully offer to her. And as I deny not but it follows, foe is a Woman, therefore, not a God ; ib I think you will grant it follows as juftly, jhe is a Woman, therefore not to be adored with offerings. And therefore fee* ing the words lie indifferently between us, and are not exprefly and efpecially here applied, for the refutation of that Herefie which you pretend they were guilty of, I fee no realbn why Epipbanius might not as well intend them for that purpofe wnich I conceive, as for that which you conceive. The laft place alledged tells us, that foe was begotten a?td Bom as other Men and Women are. Which if the Collyridi- ans had thought her God, Eternal and absolutely without beginning, mould not have been barely faid but proved, as being in effed the very point in queftion ; and there- fore feeing Eptphanius contents himfelf with faying 10 without proof, it is evident he never thought they would make difficulty to grant it, and confequently that they did not believe her to be God Eternal. But then again, if the Rule be good which part of your proofs depend upon, That whatever Epipbanius denies in this difcourfe, that the Collyridians held (for upon that ground from Non & Deum banc efficeret : & non ta- men Deus3 you conclude they believed her God) If I fay this Rule be good, then you fhould be conltant to it, and pf, A CONFERENCE betwixt and now that he fays., Non tamen alitergenita eft pra- ter hominum naturam, ((he was not begotten in a different way from other men) you fhould infer, that they believed not that fhe was God, but that fhe was other wife Born and Begotten than the ordinary fort of Men. And fb where- as he fays before Non tamen corpus de coeto tulit - — -* (her Body was not from Heaven) you iriould infer , tb^t they believed her Body came from Heaven. And again from thole ■ SanBum erat Maria corpus non tamen Deus you ihould collect that they thought not only her perfon, but her Body to be God : or if thefe be wild and weak deductions, then you muft acknowledge that I have done yours fome favour in vouch (afing them a particular anfwer. 5. Demand. Whether in the Church of Roman, it be not an approved and perpetually pra&ifed worfhip of the Blef- fed Virgin, that Incenfe (which was never anciently offered unto any, either by Jews or Gentiles, but to the true, or to a fuppofed true God; and Tapers and divers other oblations, fhould be offered to her honour? Anfw. A practice of the Church of Rome, and approved too by thofe that praCtife it, belongs not to her, except it be a pra&ice of the Church and approved by her. What her pra&ice is abroad I know not ; here at home I fee no fuch practice ; nor do I know any approbation of it, in any of her publick declarations : But this I know, that there is nothing in it unlawful or favouring of the Collyridian Superftition, to offer Wax, Tapers or any other tiling at the Memories of the Blefled Virgin or any other Canonized Saint, either as means to procure their inter- ceffion, by thefe outward Signs of the Honour and De- votion which they bear to them (as of Old we find by S. *k&aquas7i- Auftin a they did u(e to adorn. their Tombs with Flow- bilotanas E- ers) or as monuments of their thankfulnefs for fome pifcopo offe- Dencgts received by their Interceffion, as Theodoret b tells rente Projccto, J reliquias martyr is gloriofiffmi Stephani, ad ejus memoriam veniebat magna multitudi- ms cmcwjlis & eccurfus. ibi c but fimply no Sacrifice unlefs it be fb : I fay you may as well require to the eflence of a Sacrifice, that it be offered by a Prieft, and from thence conclude, be- caufe the Collyridians were, you fay, no Priefts, their of- fering was no Sacrifice. For the objeft of the Action is as extrinfecal to the eflence of it, as the efficient ; And therefore if the defed of a due and legitimate Offerer, cannot hinder but that an offering may be a true Sacri- fice, neither will the want of a due and lawful objed be any hindrance but ftill it may be fb. Secondly, I fay, this is to confound the eflence of things with the lawful ufe of them; in effect as if you fhould fay, that a Knife, if mifimployed, were a Knife no longer. Thirdly, it is to make it not unlawful, to offer Incenfe (which yet you feem fomewhat fcrupulous of) or Burnt-offerings to the Virgin Mary, or the Saints, or even to living Men, provided you know and believe and profefs them to be Men and not Gods. For this once fiippofed, thefe offer- ings will be no longer Sacrifices, and to offer to Crea- tures offerings that are not Sacrifices, you fay, by the Do&rine of the Roman Church is lawful : It is laftly, to deny (which is moft ridiculous) that the Pagans did indeed Sacrifice to any of their inferiour Gods. 7. Demand. If it be faid, that this worfhip which they give to the Blefled Virgin is not that of Latria, but that of Dulia or Hyperduha, for that they do not efteem her God : or if it be laid, that their worfhip to her is not finally terminated neither, but given her for her relation to Chrift. I demand, whether as it is, in S. Pauls judg- ment, a great crime for him that knows God, not to worfhip him as God, fb it be not as great a crime, for him that knows her not to be God, yet to worfhip her (as if fhe were God,) with the worfhip which is proper and Mr. Chillingworth a nd Mr. Lewgar. J9 and hath been alwaies appropriated to God alone, fuch is the worjliip of oblations ? Anfiv. The worflnp of oblations, as worjhip is taken larg- ly for honour, and oblations for a gift or prefent, was never appropriate to God alone; take worfoip and oblations in any higher fenfe, and fo it is not allowed in the Church of Rome. Reply. The oblation of things by way ofConfumption, is the worfhip I (poke of ; this is a higher matter, than that of gifts and prefentsy and this is allowed in the Church of Rome, to be imployed on, and direded into, ( though not terminated in) the Virgin Mary and other Saints. 8. Demand. Whether any thing can be faid for the jufti- fying the Do&rine and practice of the Roman Church in this matter, which might not alfb have been as juftly pre- tended, for the juftification of the Collyndians in their opinion and pradice ; feeing it was never imputed to them, that they accounted the Bleffed Virgin God, or that they believe who are called Collyridians. And again, p. 150. They that of- fer to the Blejfed Virgin Cakes who are called Collyridians : So to the 79th. Herefie he gives this Title, Againfl the Collyridians who offer to Mary : So H*eref. 78, and 79. He fets down what he heard of them ; but no where that they held this opinion of her : I conclude therefore, that he never conceived this opinion to be a part of their He- refie, and they were no further chargeable with it, than as a probable confequent upon their practice. My third is, Becaufe had the Collyridians held her God, they would have worfhiped her all the year long, and not only once a year at a Solemn «time, as Epiphamm fays thev did. My fourth is, Becaufe if Epiphanius had known that they held her God, he would queftionlefs have urged them with thofe Attributes that are given to God in Scripture, as Eternity, Immortallity, Impoffibilky, Omnipotence, &c. And mewed them, that if they believed the Scri- pture, they could not think of her any of thofe things ; if they did not, they had no reafbn to think of her any thing more than of an ordinary Woman. My fifth is, becaufe had their opinion been, that the Blefled Virgin was God ; a great part of Epiphanius <*> dif- courfe were plainly ridiculous ; both where he fays only without proof, me was not a God but a Mortal Creature, which to them that held the contrary mould not have been faid, but proved : But efpecially where he fpeaks to this purpofe ( as he does very frequently J that the hon- our of Oblations was not to be given to Angels or Men, much lefs to Women, but only to God : for what had that been to the Collyridians, if they thought her (as is pretended) a Sovereign Power and Deity ? to what pur- pofe was it for Epiphanius to ask, Quis prophet am ; What prophet 64 A CONFERENCE betwixt prophet ever permitted, that a Man , much lefs a Woman flould be adored, though he be yet alive. Nor John nor Tecla, nor any other Saint, For neither flail the Old Super- flition have dominion over us, that leaving the Living God, we fhould Adore his Creatures. To what end I (ay was all thiSj if they^ thought her not a Saint nor Creature, but God himfelf and the Lord of all ? How did this Argument touch them ? Ne Angelos quidem He fuffers not the very Angels to be adored, how much lefs the Daughter of Anna ? if they thought her not the Daughter of Anna> but God Eternal ; In vain had it been to fay to them — Not to a Woman, no nor to a Man^ but to God alone, is this mifiery f of Oblation) due. So that the Angels themfelves are not fit Subje&s for fuch an honour. Or again, Let the Creature be turned to the Creator : Let flame at length compel you to worjlnp God alone : Or laftly, that fb often repeated Let Mary be honoured, but the Lord only adored. For they might have anfwered all this in a word, laying, All this difcourfe fits befides the Culhion, and concerns us and our offering nothing at all. For we be- lieve the Blefied Virgin to whom we offer neither Man nor Woman, nor Angel, nor Creature, but a Deity. A Sixth Reafon let it be this, If Epiphanms did indeed lay of the Collyndians as is pretended, That they held the Virgin Mary God, and fo difference their pra&ice from the Papifts : Then the Author of this Anfwer and Petavius in his Translation, needed not to have di&ated to him what he mould fay, nor make him fay fo whether he will or no : But it is evident they do fb, as of the Author of this Anfwer I have already mewn : and for Petavius his part, I will fb prefent it to your view, that if you will not fhut your Eyes, you mall not choofe but fee it. Firft then, Haref.^%. pr ope fin. he (Petavius) fetsin his Margent, cjiudam Deum Mariam efie, crediderunt ; and to countenance this with a loquuntur of his own putting in, makes them jpeak of her like mad Men, /. e. they faid fhe was God : whereas in Fpiphamuss Greek they fay juit nothing. Secondly, Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 6> Secondly, To fiften the pretended Opinion on them, he tranflates ^v^vwija Novum dogma: prefuming. it feems wc$dvH$vt would ealilv be miftaken for v^iv^m^^., and therefore meanes nothing by it, but a vanity or fol- ly- Thirdly, He tranflates rol^, Illud ; and Co makes it look backward to that pretended Novum dogma of the Collyridi- ans\ whereas it fignihes there [And] and looks forward to their practice. Fourthly, With the help of a Colon, he flops the fenfe at Commentas fuiffe, whereas in Epiphamm there is but a Comma, and the fenfe goes on without fufpenfi- on. Fifthly, With an adeo ut, he brings in their adion, as- an effect of their former opinion ; whereas Epiphanu/s lays nothing to their charge but their Action only : So that whereas Epiphamm his words truly tranflated run thus: A- not her thing I have received with great aft [onifhment ,th >at others being mad concerning the BleJJed Virgin, have and do go about to bring her in, in the place of God, being mad, I fay, and be- fides themselves : For they report that certain Women in Arabia have brought this vanity of offering a Cake to her name. Te- tavius makes them thus Not without admiration we have heard another thing, that feme in thefe things that concern the rnoft holy Virgin have proceeded to that degree ofmadnefi, that they would obtrude her upon us for a God, and Jfeak of her as madmen : For they report that certain Women in Arabia, have invented that new Opinion : fo that to the Virgins name and honour, they offer by way of jacnfice a Cake or wreath of Bread. Again in the fame Haref Urxp/iv J)& yjwxav, he tranflates advantageoufly per mulieres facrificia facere. Whereas hwyuv is more general than Jacrificia facere, and iigmfies facrw operari, or facros ritus peragere. Again, in the lame place, whereas Epiphamm fays {im- ply and abfblutely Let no man offer to her name, he makes it, Let no man offer facrifice to htrname\ as if you might law- fully offer any thing provided you do not call it a facri- fice. K So 66 A CO NFE RENCE betwixt So again i£*r*/>79.befides his putting cunningly — ipfa fuit — which before we took notice of; he makes no fcru- ple to put in Dogma and Sacrificium, wherefbever it may be for his purpofe. Epiphanim his title to this Herefie is, A- gainft the Collyridians who offer to Mary Vetavim puts in Sacrifice. Again in the fame page, before D. he puts in his own tllo dogmate, and whereas Epiphanim fays-i» all this, he makes it , in all this Opinion. Pag. 1 06 1 . to Swai/Jwj vmyoiaiiy he tranflates, this 7vcmanifl> Opinion, whereas Cmy»iA though perhaps it may fignifie a thought , or a£fc of thinking, yet I believe it never lignifies an Opinion which we hold-. Ibid, at B. to/«]o — this he renders this Opini- on. Pag. 1064. at C. Nor that we jiwuld offer to her name, fimply and abfblutely: he makes it,- Nor that we JJwuld offer [acrifice to her name. So many times is he fain to corrupt, and tranflate him partially, left in condemning rhe Collyridians, he might feem to have involved the pra- ctice of the Roman Church in the fame Condemnati- on. My Seventh and laft Reafbn is this. Had Epiphanim known that the Collyridians held the Virgin Mary to be a So- vereign power and Deity, then he could not have doubt- ed, whether this their offering was to her or to God for her : whereof yet he feems doubtful and not fully refblved, as his own words intimate, Harefiy. ad fin. gn am mult a &c. How many things may be objecled againfi this Herefie ? for idle Women either worshipping the Blefied Virgin, offer unto her a Cake, or elfe they take upon them to offer for her this fore- faid ridiculous oblation. Now both are foelijh and from the Devil. Thefe Arguments I fuppofe do abundantly demon- ftrate to any man not viel'd with prejudice, that Epiphani- us imputed not to the Collyridians the Herefie of believing the Virgin Mary God : and if they did not think her God, there is then no reafon imaginable why their oblation of a Cake, fhould not be thought a Trefenti as well as the Papifis Mr. Chillingvvorth and Mr. Lcwgar. 67 Papifts offering a Taper, or that the Papifts offering a Taper, fhould not be thought a Sacrifice, as well as their offering a Cake ; and feeing this was the difference preten- ded between them^this being vanifhed there remains none at all ; So that my firft Conclufion ftands yet firm ; that either the Ancient Church erred in condemning theCc/Zy- ridians, or the prefent errs in approving and pra<5tifing the fame worihip. An Advertisement. The Reader when he meets with the Phrafe Catholick Dotlrin, in the two following Difcourfes, muft re- member,-, that it does not fignifie Articles of Faith determined in any General Councils, which might be looked upon as the Faith of the whole Church ; but the Current and Common Opinion of the Age, which obtained in it without any known oppofiti- on and contradiction. Neither need this be won- dred at, fince they are about matters far removed from the Common Faith of Chriflians, and having no neceffary influence upon good life and manners, whatfoever neceflity,by miftake of fome Scriptures, might be put upon them. K 2 IV. An 68 J CONFERENCE betwixt IV. An Argument drawn from the admitting Infants to the Eucharift, as without which they could not befavedy againft the Churches Infallibility. TH E Condition without the performance whereof no man can be admitted to the Cc mmunion of the Church of Rome, is this ; that he believe firmly and without doubt- ing, whatfbever the Church requires him to believe: More diftin&ly and particularly thus : He muft believe all that to be divine Revelation which that Church teaches to be iuch ; as the Do&rin of the Tri- nity, the Hypoftatical union of two natures in the perfbn of Chrift. The proceflion of the Holy Gholt from the Father and the Son : the Do&rin of Tranfubftantiation, and fuchlike. Whatfosver that Church teaches to be neceflary, he muft believe to be neceffary. As Baptifm for Infants ; Faith in Chrift, for thofe that are Capable of Faith ; Pe- nance for thofe that have committed mortal fin after Baptifm, &c. ■ Whatfbever that Church declares expedient and profita- ble, he muft believe to be expedient and profitable : as Monaftical Life : Prayer to Saints : Prayer for the Dead : going on Pilgrimages : The ufe of Pardons : Veneration of holy Images and Reliques : Latin Service where the people underftand it not : Communicating the Laity in one kind and fuch like. Whatfbever that Church holdeth lawful, he muft believe lawful : As to Marry : to make diftin&ion of Meats, as if fbme were clean and others unclean : to flie in time of Per- fection : for them that ferve at the Altar, to live by the Altar : to teftifie a truth by Oath, when a lawful Magiftrate fhall require it : to poflefs Riches, &c. Now is it impoffible that any man mould certainly be- lieve any thing; unlefs either it be evident of it felf, or he have fbme certain reafon (at leaft fbme fuppofed cer- tain reafon) and infallible ground for his belief. Now the Do&rins Mr. Chtllingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 69 Do&rins which the Church of Rome teacheth, it is evident and undeniable that they are not evident of themfelves, neither evidently true nor evidently credible. He there- fore that will believe them, muft of neceffityhave fome certain and infallible ground whereon to build his belief of them. There is no other ground for a Mans belief of them, efpecially in many points, but only an ailurance of the In- fallibility of the Church of Rome. No man can beadured that that Church is infallible and cannot err, whereof he may be allured that fhe hath erred, unlets fhe had iome new promife of divine afliftance, which might for the future iecure her from danger of erring ; but the Church of Rome pretends to none (uch. Nothing is more certain, than that that Church hath erred, which hath believed and taught irreconcileable Contradi&ions, one whereof muft of necefiity be an Error. That the Receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharift is neceflary for Infants, and that the receiving thereof is not necedary for them : That it is the will of God, that the Church fhould adminifter the Sacrament to them \ and that it is not the will of God that the Church fhould do fb ; are manifeft and irreconcileable Contradictions : Suppo- fing only, (that which is molt evident) that the Eucharift is the fame thing, of the fame vertue and efficacy now, as it was in the primitive Church : That Infants are the fame things they were, have as much need, are capable of as much benefit by the Eucharift, now as then : As iub- jecl: to irreverent carnages, then as now. And laftly, that the prefent Church is as much bound to provide for the fpiritual good of Infants, as the Ancient Church was : I fay thefe things fuppofed, the proportions before fet down are plain and irreconcileable Contradictions : where- of the prefent Roman Church doth hold the Negative, and the Ancient Church of Rome did hold the Affirmative ; and therefore it is evident, that either the prefent Church doth err, in holding fbmething not neceilary, which is fo; or that the Ancient Church did err, in holding lbmething neceflary, which was not fo. For A CONFERENCE betwixt For the Negative Propofition, *vk,. That the Eucbarifi is not neceffary for Infants ; that it is the Doctrin of the pre- fent Church of Rome it is molt manifeft. i. From the difufe and abolition and prohibition of the contrary Anci- ent pra&ice. For if the Church did conceive it neceffary for them, either fimply for their falvation, or elfe for their increafe or confirmation in grace, and advancement to a higher degree of glory (unlefs fhe could fupply lome other way their damage in this thing, which evidently me can- not) what an uncharitable facriledge is it, to debar and defraud them of the neceffary means of their fo great fjpi- ritual benefit ? eipecially feeing the adminiftration or it might be fb ordered, that irreverent cafualties might eafily be prevented : which yet mould they fall out againft the Churches and Paftors intention, certainly could not offend God, and in reafbn mould not offend man. Or if the Church do believe, that upon fuch a vain fear of irreve- rence (which we fee moved not the Ancient Church at all) fhe may lawfully forbid fuch a general, perpetual and neceffary charity, certainly herein fhe commits a far grea- ter error than the former. Secondly, from the Council oiTrents Anathema, denounced on all that hold the con- trary, in thefe words. If any man jay that the receiving of the Eucharifi, zs neceffary for little children^ before they come to years of difcretion> let him be Anathema. Concil. Trid. Seffll. decommunione far valor um> Can. 4. Now for the Affirmative part of the Contradiction, to make it evident that that was the Doctrin of the Ancient Church ; I will prove it, Firft, from the general pra&ice of the Ancient Church for feveral Ages. Secondly, by the direct and formal Teftimonies of the Fathers of thofe times. Thirdly, by the confeflion of the moft learned Antiquaries of the Roman Church. My Firft Argument I form thus. If to communicate Infants was the general practice of the Ancient Church for many Ages ; then cer- tainly the Church then believed, that the Euchanft was neceffary for them, and very available for their Spiritual benefit : But it is certain, that the Communicating of In- fants was the general practice of the Church for many Ages Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 71 Ages: Therefore the Church of thofe times thought it ne- ceflary for them. To deny theconfequence ofthe propo- sition, is to charge the Church with extream folly, wilful fn perflation, and perpetual profanation of the Blefled Sa- crament. As for the Allumption, it is fully confirmed by Clemens Rom. Con ft it. Afoft. 1. 3. c. 20. Dionyfim Areopagita de Ecclef. Hierarch. cap. lilt S. Cyprian and a Council of African Bilhops with him, Epift. 59. ad Fidum\ and in his Treadle de Lapfis p. 137. Edit. PameL V animus Bifhop of Nola m Italy 3 An. 35;. m Epift. n. adSenem; out of O- do Romamts, cited by Alevinm S. Bedes Scholar and Mafter to Charlemam in his Book de dvuinis officii* cap. de Sab. San- ftoPafc. Gennadius Maffllienfis de Ecclef. dogmatists c. 52. Conc'il. Toletanum i. Can. n. It continued in the Weitern Church, unto the days of Laives the Debonair, witnefs Car- dinal Perron des faff ages de S. Auftin p. 1 00. Some foot- lteps of it remained there in the time of Hugo de S. Victor ey as you may fee lib. 1 . de Sacram. & Coerem. cap.20. It was the practice ofthe Church of the Armenians in Waldenfis his time, as he relates out oiGuido the Carmelite, Tom. 2. de Sacr. c. 9 1 . de erroribtts Armenorum. It is ltill in force in the Church of the Abyffmes, witnefs Franc. Alvarez,. Hift. <>AEtbiop.c.2Z. & Thorn as ajefu de frocuranda falute omnium gentium. It has cotinued without any interruption in the Greek Church, unto this prefent Age, as may be evi- dently gathered out of Lyranm in c. 6. John. Arcudius lib. 1 . c. 1 4. & lib. 5. c. 40. de concord. Ecclef. Orient. & Occident, in Sacram. admimfiratione ; Card. Perron des faff ages deS. Auftin. p. too. where he alfbafliires us ofthe Primi- tive Church in general, that ihe gave Infants the Eucha- nft as fbon as they were baptized : and that the cuftome of giving this Sacrament to little Infants the Church then oblerved : and before p. 2 r . That in thofe Ages it was always given to Infants together with Baptifm. The lame is likewife acknowledged by Contzen in John 6. ver.^. and by Thomas a Jefu de proc. falute omnium gentium. So that this matter of the pradice of the Ancient Church is fuffi- ciently cleared. Seeing therefore the Ancient Church did life this Cuftom, and could have no other ground for it, but 71 rA CONFERENCE betwixt but their belief that this Sacrament was neceflary for In- fants, it follows neceflarily, that the Church then did be- lieve it neceflary. But deductions, though never fo evident, are fuperflu- ous and may be let afide, where there is fuch abundance of direft and formal Authentical Teftimonies; whereof fbmefpeak in Theft, of the neceflity of the Eucharift for all men, others in Hypothefi , of the neceflity of it for In- fants. My Second Argument, from the Teftimonies of the Fathers of thofe times I form thus. That Doctnn, in the affirmative whereof the moft eminent Fathers of the anci- ent Church agree, and which none of their contempora- ries have oppofed or condemned, ought to be taken for the Catholick Do&rinof the Church of thofe times. But the moft eminent Fathers of the Ancient Church agree in the Affirmation of this Do&rin, that the Eucha- nft is neceflary for Infants ; and none of their contempo- raries have oppofed or condemned it. Ergo, it ought to be taken for the Catholick Do&rin of the Church of their times. The Major of this Syllogifm is delivered and fully proved by Card. Perrcn, in his Letter to Cafaubon 5. obf! and is indeed fo reafbnable a poftulate, that none but a conten- tious (pint can reject it. For confirmation of the Minor, I will ailed ge/firft, their fentences, which in Thefi affirm the Eucharift to be gene- rally neceflary for all, and therefore for Infants : and then their Suffrages, who in Hypothefi avouch the neceflity of it for Infants. The moft pregnant Teftimonies of the fir ft rank are thefe: Oilranem lib. 4. corn. Heref. c. 34. where he makes our Union to Chnit by the Eucharift, the foundation of the hope of our refiirre&ion, 111 thefe words. As the bread of Earth, after the Invocation of God3 is now not common, bread, but the Euchanfi, confifiing of two things an earthly and an heavenly : Jo our bodies receiving the Eucharift, are not now corruptible ( for ever) but have hope of refurrethon. The like he hath, lib. 5. c. 2. And hence in probability it is, that the Nicene Ccuncil ftiled this Sacrament, Symbol urn re- furrebhoniS) Mr. Chillingworth and ^r.Lewgar. furreclioms, the pledge of our Refurre&ion. And Ighatws Ep. ad Eph. Tharmacum Immortalitatis, the Medicine off Immortality. Cyril. Alex. lib. 4. in Joan. They fliall never partake, nor (0 much as tafi, the life of hohnef and happinef, which receive not the Son in themyftical Benediction. Cyril, lib. 10. in Joan, C. I}. &lib. IT. C. 17. This corruptible nature of our body, could not otherwife be brought to life and immortality, unlefithts body of natural life were cenjoyned unto it. The very fame things faith Gregory Nyjfen. O rat. Ca tech. c. 57. And that rhey both fpeak of our conjund'on with Chrift by the Eu- charift:, the Antecedents and Confequents do fully mani- feft, and it is a thing confefted by learned Catholicks. Cyprian de ccena Domini, and Tertullian de rejur. carms, fpeak to the fame purpofc : But I have not their Books by me, and therefore cannot fet down their words. S. Chry- fofiom, Horn. 47. in Joh on thefe words, rjfi manducave- ntis, has many pregnant and plain fpeeches to our purpofe. As, the words here jfioken are very terrible : verily, Jaith he, if a man eat not my fiejh, and drink not my blood, he hath no life in him ; for whereas they (aid before, this could not be done, he [hews it not only not impojjible, but alfo very necejjary. And a little after ; he often iterates his (peech concerning the holy my- fieries, jhewing the neceffty of the thing, and that by all means it mu(t be done. And again, what means that which he fays, my fleflo is meat indeed, a?id my blood is drink indeed ; either that this is the true meat that faves the foul ; or to confirm them in thefa'nh of what he hadjpoken, that theyflwuld not think he (poke Enigmatically, or parabolic ally, but knew that by all means they muft eat his body. But moft clear and unanfwerable is that place lib. 3. de Sacerdotio, where he faith, If a man cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven unlefi he be born again of water and the holy fpirit ; and if he which eats not the fief) of our Lord and drinks not his blood, is cafi out of eternal life : And all thefe things cannot be done by any other, but only by thofe holy hands, the hands, I fay of the Priefl, how then without their help can any man, either avoid the fire of hell, or obtain the Crowns laid up for us, L Thee- 74 ^ CO NFE RENCE betwixt Theophylacl. in 6. Joan, when therefore we hear, that un- lefi we eat theflefh of the Son of wan, we cannot have life, we muft have faith without doubting in the receiving of the divine myfteries, and never inquire how : for the natural man, that is he which foUoweth humane, that is, natural reafons, receives not the things which are above nature andjpiritual ; as alfo he underfiands not the Jfciritual meat of theflefljof our Lord, which they that receive not, fljall not be partakers of eternal life, as not receiving Jefm, who is the true life. S.Auftm de pec. mer. 8c RemiL c. 14. Very well do the puny Chrifiians call Baptifm nothing elfe but falvation ; and the Sacrament of Chrifis Body nothing elfe but Life ; from whence Jlwuld this be, but as I believe from the Ancient and Apoftplical Tradition, by which this Doclrin is implanted into the Churches ofChrif, that but by Baptifm and the participation of the Lords Table, not any man can attain, neither to the Kingdom of God, nor to fal- vation and eternal life. Now we are taught by the learned Cardinal ; that when the Fathers (peak, not asDo£lors, but as witnefles of the Cuftoms of the Church of their times ; and do not fay, I believe this fljouldbefo holden, or fo underfiood, or fo obferved, but that the Church from one end of the earth to the other be- lieves it fo, or obferves it fo ; then we no longer hold what they (ay, for a thing laid by them, but as a thing laid by the whole Church ; and principally when it is in points, whereof they could not be ignorant., either becaufe of the condition of the things, as in matters of fad ; or becaufe of the fufficiency of the perfbns : and in this cafe, we ar- gue no more upon their words probably, as we?do when they fpeak in the quality of particular Do&ors, but we ar- gue thereupon demonftratively. I fubfiime. But S.Auflin the fufficienteft perfon which the Church of his time had, f peaking of a point, wherein he could not be ignorant ; fays not that I believe the Eu- charift to be necellary to falvation ; but the Churches of Chrift believe fo, and have received this do&rin from A- poftolical Tradition : Therefore I argue upon his words not probably, but demonftratively, that this was the Ca- thohek do&rinof the Church of his time. And thus much for Mr. Chilling worth and ykfr.Lewgar. 7$, for the Thefts, That the Eucharift was held generally necejfary for all. Now for the Hypothefis ; That the Eucharift was held necejfary for Infants in particular. WitnefTes hereof are S.Cyprian, Pope Innocent Ins I. and Eufebws EmiJJen us , with S.Auftm together with the Author of the Book intituled Hypognoftica. Cyprian indeed does not in terms affirm it, but we have a very clear intimation of it in his Epiftle to Fidus. For whereas he and a Council of Bifliops together with him, had ordered, that Infants might be baptized andfacrificed, that is., communicated before the eighth day, though that were the day appointed for Circumcifion by the old Law. There he fets down this as the reaf on of their Decree, that the mercy and grace of God, was to be denied to no ?nan. Pope Innocent the firft, (in Ep. ad Epif. Cone. Milev. qua eft inter Auguft.^.) concludes a'gainrtthe Pelagians ; that Infants could not attain eternal life without Baptifm; be- caufe without Baptifm they were uncapable of the Eucha- rift, and without the Euchanft could not have eternal life. His words are, but that which your Fraternity affirms them to Preach, that Infants without the grace of Baptifm may have the rewards of eternal life, is certainly mojt foolifli ; for unlefi they eat theftefh of the Son of man and drink his bloody they flail have no life in them. Now that this fenfe which I have given his words, is in- deed the true fenfe of them, and that his judgment upon the point was as I have faid ; it is acknowledged by Maldonate in Joan.6.v.$4- by Binitts upon the Councils Tom.i.p.6z^ fcy Sanclefim, Repet. 6.C.7. and it is affirmed by S. Aujtin who was his Contemporary, held correfpondence by Let- ters with him, and therefore in all probability could not be ignorant of his meaning. I fay he affirms it, as a mat- ter out of Quefhon, Epift. 1 06. and Cont. Julian, lib. 1 . c.4. where he tells that Pelagiusm denying this, did di($ut<2 con* tr a fed is Apoftolica author it atem ; againft the authority of the Sea Apoftolick ; and after, but if they yield to the Sea Apo- flolick, or rather to the Mafter himfelf and Lord of the Apo- ftles3 who fay S) that they flail not have life in tbem2 unlefthey L 2 eat yg rA CONFERENCE betwixt eat the flejh of the Son of man and drink his blood, 'which ?2one may do but thofe that are baptized ; then at length they will confefi, that Infants not baptized cannot have life. Now Ifuppoieno man will doubt, but the belief of the Apoftolick Sea ; was then (as S.Auftin allures us /. i.cont. Jul. c 4.) the belief of the Church of Rome, taking it for a particular Church : and then it will prefently follow, that either other Churches do not think themfelves bound in conformity of belief with the Roman Church, notwith- standing Irenaus his -necejj'e efi ad banc Ecclefiam, omnem cotrvenire Ecclefiam : or that this was then the Doctrin of the Catholick Church. For Eufebius EmiJJ'enus I cannot quote any particular proof out of him: but his belief in this point is acknowledged by S ancle f Repet. 6. c. 7. Like- wife for S. Auftm, the fame Sanclefius and Bimus, and MaU donate, either not mindful or not regardful of the Ana- thema of the Council of Trent, acknowledge (111 the pla- ces above quoted) that he was alfb of the fame belief: and indeed he profeileth it fb plainly and fo frequently, that he muft be a meer ftrangerto him that knows it not, and very impudent that denies it. Euchariftiam infantibus put et necefariam Augufiinusi fay alfb the Divines of Lo- ad infantes ad Alt are. Befides that it is very ft range S. Au- fim mould make a Sermon to Infants; and that there is no fiich Sermon extant in his works ; nor any memory of any fuch in Poffidius, S. Auftins Scholars Catalogue of his works, nor in his Book of Retract aitons : letting alide all this, I fay Firfr, That it is no way certain that he fpeaks there of Infants, feeing in propriety of fpeech (as S:Ak~ ft in himfelf teacheth us Ep. 2 ; ) Infants were not Fidelesy oi whom S. Aujtin in that fuppofed Sermon fpeaks. Se- condly, Admit he does ipeak of Infants, where he allures us, that in Baptifm every faithful man is made partaker of Chrifts body and blood, and that he (hall not be ali- enated from the benefit of the Bread and Cup, although he depart this life, before he eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. All this concludes no more, but that the a&ual^participation of the Euchanft, is not a means limply necelTary to attain falvation, lb that no impoflibility lhall . excufe the railing of it: Whereas all that I aim at is but this, that in the judgment of the Ancient Church, it was believed, neeeflary, in cafe of poflibility; necefiary, not in 78 A CONFER ENC E betwixt in aBu, but in voto Ecclefia : not neceflary to falvation!fim- ply, but neceflary for the increafe of grace and glory : And therefore, Laftly, though not neceflary by necejfity of means, for Infants to receive it; yet neceflary by necejjity of precepts for the Church to give it. The laft wimefs I promifed, was the Author of the work againft the Pelagians called Hypognoft ica, who (/. f. c. $.) ask the Pelagia?is, Seeing he him f elf hath faid, unlefi you eat the fleJ1),&cc. How dare you promife eternal life to lit- tle Children, not regenerate of water and the Holy Ghoft \ not having eaten his flefj, nor drank his blood. And a little after, Behold then, he that is not Baptized, and he that is deftitute of the Bread and Cup of life, is Separated from the Kingdom of Heaven. To the fame purpofe he fpeaks /. 6. c. 6. But it is ftper- fluous to recite his words, for either this is enough or no- thing. The third kind of proof, whereby I undertook to ihew the belief of the ancient Church in this point, was the Con- fejjion of the learnedeft Writers and be ft ver(l in the Church of Rome. Whoj what the Council of Trent forbids under Anathema, that any man fhould fay of any ancient Father, are not yet afraid, nor make no fcruple, to fay it in plain terms of the whole Church for many Ages together, viz. That flie believed the Eucharift neceflary for Infants. So doth Maldonate in Joan. 6. Mitto Augufiini & Innocentii fententiam (qua etiam viguit in Ecclefia per fexcentos annos) Euchariftiam etiam Infant ibm necejjariam. I Jay nothing fays he, of Auftins and Innocentius his opinion, that the Eucha- rifir was neceflary even for Infants, which doclrin flour iflied in the Church for 600. years. The fame almoft in terms hath Binius, in his Notes on the Councils, pag. 624. Hinc con flat Innocentii Jententia (qua fexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclefia, quam Augufii- nus Jetlatus efi ) Euchariftiam etiam infantibus necefjariam Laftly, That treafury of Antiquity Cardinal Perron, though he fpeaks not fb home as the reft do, yet he fays enough for my purpoie: des pajjages de S.Augup. c. 10. p. ior. Mr. Chlilingworth and Mr, Lewgar. 7a p. iol. The Cufiom of giving the Eucharift to Infants the Church then obferved as profitable. This I fay is enough for my purpofe. For what more contradi&ious, than the Eucharift being the fame without alteration to Infants being the fame without alteration, mould then be pro- fitable and now unprofitable : then all things confidered expedient to be ufid, if not neceilary, and therefore com- manded : And now, though there be no variety in the cafe, all things confidered not neceffary, nor expedient^ and therefore forbidden. The Iflue of all this Difcourfe, for ought I can fee, muft be this : That either both parts of a Contradi&ion muft be true, and coniequently nothing can be falfe, fee- ing that which contradið truth is not (6 : or elfe, that the Ancient Church did err in believing fomething ex- pedient which was not fo ; (and if fo, why may not the prefent Church err, in thinking Latin- Service, and Com- munion in one kind expedient:) or that the prefent Church doth err, in thinking fomething not expedient, which is fb. And if fo, why may ihe not err, in think- ing Communicating the Laity in both kinds, and Service . in vulgar Languages, not expedient. V. Art So A CONFER ENC E betwixt V. An Argument drawn from the DoElrin o f the Millenaries, againjl Infallibility. Til E Do<5ti in of the Millenaries was, That before the worlds end, Chrifl Jbould reign upon earth for a thousand years, and that the Saints jlwuld live under him m all holt- mfi and happinefi. That this DocStrin is by the prefent Ro- man Church held falfe and Heretical., I think no man will deny. That the fame Do&rin, was by the Church of the next Age after the Apoftles held true and Catholick I prove by thefe two Reafons. The firft Reafbn, Whatfoever doctrin is believed and taught by the molt eminent Fathers of any Age of the Church., and by none of their contemporaries oppoled or condemned,, that is to be efteemcd the Catholick Dodrin of the Church of thofe times. But the Do&rin of the Millenaries was believed and taught by the eminent Fathers of the Age next after the Apoftles^ and by none of that Age oppofed or condemned. Therefore it was the Catholick Do&rin of the Church of thofe times. The Proportion of this Syllogifrn is Car- dinal Ferrons rule., (in his Epiftle to Cafaubon, 5.obferv.) And is indeed one of the main pillars, upon which the great Fabrick of his Anfwer to King James doth Hand, and with which it cannot but fall ; and therefore I will Ipend no time in the proof of it. But the Ailumption thus I prove. That Doctrin which was believed and taught by Tafias Bifhop of Hierapolis, the difciple of the Apoftles difciples (according to Eujebms) who lived in the times of the Apo- ftles,, faith he, by Juftm Martyr, Do&or of the Church and Martyr : by Melito Bifhop of Sardis,who had the gift of Prophefie., witnefs Ten. and whom Bellarmme acknow- ledged^ a Saint. By S. Irenxus Biihop of Lyons and Mar- tyr ; and was not oppoled and condemned by any one Do&or Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 8 1 Doftor of the Church of thofe times : ThatDo&rine was believed and taught by the mod Eminent Fathers of that Age, next to the Apoftles, and oppofed by none. But the former part of the Propofition is true. Ergo^ the Latter is alio true. The Major of this Syllogifm and the latter part of the Minor, I fuppofe will need no proof, with them that con- fider, that thefe here mentioned were equal in number to all the other Ecclefiaftical Writers of that Age, of whom there is any memory remaining ; and in weight and worth infinitely beyond them : they were Athenago- 7as, Theophilus Antiochenus3 Egefippus and Hippolitus : of whofe contradiction to this Docmne there is not extant, neither in their works, nor in llory, any Print or Foot- ftep : which if they or any of them had oppofed, it had been impoffible, confidering the Ecclefiaftical Story of their time is Written by the profefled Enemies of the Millinanes Doctrine; who could they have found any thing in the monuments of Antiquity to have put in the Ballance againft Jufiin Martyr and Irenaus, no doubt would not have buried it in filence : which yet they do, neither vouching for their opinion any one of more Antiquity than Dionyfus Alexandrinus, who lived, faith Eufebius, nofira tetate, [ in our Age ] but certainly in the latter part of the third Century. For Tatianus becaufe an Heretick I reckon not in this number. And if any man fay that before his fall he wrote many Books ; I lay, it is true; but withal would have it remembred, that he was Juftm Martyrs Scholar, and therefore, in all proba- bility of his-Mafters Faith, rather than againft it, all that is extant of him one way or other is but this in S. Hie- rome> de Script. Ecclef. Juftini Marty ns feci at or fait. Now for the other part of the Minor, that the fore- mentioned Fathers did believe and teach this Doctrine. And firft for Fapias that he taught it, it is confefled by Eujebws the Enemy of this Doctrine {Lib. 5. Hi ft. Ecclef. c. 55.) in thefe words, Other things be/ides the jame Au- thor (Papias) declares, that they came to him as it were by unwritten Tradition, wherein he affirms that after the Refur- M reti'ion 8z A CONFERENCE betwixt reclion of all Fleft from the Dead, there (Jjall be a Kingdom of Chrifi continued and efiablijlied for a thoufand years upon Earth, after a humane and corporeal manner. The fame is confefled by S. Hierome ^another Enemy to this opinion/^- fcript. Ecclef. S. »<).) Papias ^e Auditor an Ancient man who recorded it in writing. (a) Faverdentius his Note upon this place is very Nota- ble. Hinc apparet (faith he) from hence it appears that Irenaus neither firft invented this opinion, nor held it as proper to himfelf, but got this blot and blemilh from cer- tain Fathers. Tafias I fuppofe and fbme other inglorious fellows, the familiar Friends of Irenaus, are here intended. I hope then if the Fathers which lived with the Apo- ftles had their blots and blemilhes ; it is no fuch horrid Crime for Calvin and the Century writers to impute the lame to their great Grandchildren. JEtas farentum pejor avis frogeniem fert vitiofiorem. But yet thefe inglorious Difciples of the Apoftles, though perhaps not fo learned as Faverdentius, were yet certainly fb honeft, as not to invent lies and deliver them as Apoftolick Tradition ; or if they were not, what confidence can we place in any other unwritten Tradition. Laftly, that Jufiin Martyr grounds it upon plain Pro- phecies of the Old Tefiament, and exprefs words of the New : he profeffeth, That he, and all other Christians of a right belief in all things, believe it ; joyns them who believe it not, with them who deny the Refurre&ion ; or elfe fays, that none denied this, but the fame who denied the Refurre£tion ; and [that indeed they were called Chrifti- ansj but in deed and Truth were none. Whofo. Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 8 J WhofoeverJ fay, confiders thefe things will eafily grant, that they held it not as their own opinion, but as the Dodrine of the Church and the Faith of Chriftians. Hereupon I conclude, whatfoever they held, not as their private opinion, but as the Faith of the Church, that was the Faith of the Church of their time : But this Dodrme they held, not as their private opinion, but as the Faith of the Church. Ergo, it was and is to be efteemed the Faith of the Church. Trypho. ccDo ye confefs that before ye exped the tc coming of Chrift, this place Hierufalem mall be again €C reftored, and that your People mall be congregated, and " rejoyce together with Chrift, and the Patriarchs and "the Prophets, &c. Jufiin Martyr. {cl have confeffed to you before, that €C both I and many others do believe, as you well know, rc that this fhall be ; but that many again, who are (not) cf of the pure and holy opinion of Chriftians, do not "acknowledge this, I have alio ilgnified unto you : ct For I have declared unto you, that fome called Chriftians, cf but being indeed Atheifis and impious Hereticks, do gene- fc rally teach blafphemous and Atheiftical and foolifh things : ff but that you might know that I (peak not this to you on- €C ly, I will make a Book as near as I can of thefe our difc "putations, where I will profefs in writing that which I " fay before you ; for I refblve to follow not men, and the " Dodnnes of men, but God and the Dodrine of God. fc For although you chance to meet with fbme that are f c called Chriftians, which do not confefs this, but dare Cf to Blafpheme the God of Abraham, the God oflfaac, and rc the God of Jacob, which alio fay there is no Refurredi- cf on of the Dead, but that as fbon as they die their Souls ff are received into Heaven, do not ye yet think them sc Chriftians: as neither if a man coniider rightly will lie cc account the Sadducees and other Sectaries and Hcreticks, tc as the Geniftte and the Men ft a andGalileam, and Pharifees '* and Hellenians and Baptifts and other fiich to be Jews ; but Cf only that they are called Jews^ml the Children of Abra- e< ham. and fuch as with their lips confefs God (as God "himfelf 86 A CO NFE RENCE betwixt "himfelf cries out) but have their Hearts far from him. "But land all Chriftians that in all things believe aright, €< both know that there ftiall be a Refurre&ion of the c< Flefh, and a thouland years in Hierujalem reftored and €c adorned and inlarged; according as the Prophets, Ezekiel " and Efay and others do teftifie : for thus faith Ifaiah of ce the time of this thoufand years. For there {hall be a new " Heaven and a new Earth, and they JhaU not remember the former, &c. And after. ff A certain man amongft us " whole name was John, one of the Twelve Apoftles of cc Chnft, in that Revelation which was exhibited unto him, " hath foretold — That they which believe our Chrift Cf mall live in Hierufalem a thoufand years, and that after, cf the Univerlaland everlafting Relurre£tion and Judgment €C mail be. I have prefumed in the beginning of J u ft in Martyrs an- 'fwer to fubftitute (not) inftead of (alfo) becaufe I am confident, that either by chance, or the fraud of fbme ill-willers to the Millinaries opinion ; the place has been corrupted, and (?) turned into ($) (not) into (alio.) For if we retain the ulual reading But that many who are alfo of the pure and holy opinion of Chriftians do not acknow- ledge this, I have alfo fignified unto you ; then muft we conclude, that J u ft in Martyr himlelf did believe the opi- nion of them which denied the thoufand years, to be the pure and holv opinion of Chriftians : and if lb, why did he not himlelf believe it ? nay how could he but believe it to be true, profefling it (as he does if the place be right) to be the pure and holy opinion of Chriftians : for now a falle Do&rine can be the pure and holy opinion of Chriftians, what Chriftian can conceive ? or if it may be ib, how can the contrary avoid the being untrue, unho- ly and not the opinion of Chriftians ? Again, if we read the place thus That many who are alfo of the pure and holy opinion of Chriftians, do not ac- knowledge this, I have alfo fignified : certainly there wll be neither fenfe nor reafon, neither coherence nor confe- quence in the words following For I have told you of many called Chriftians , but be. big indeed Atheifts and He- reticks. Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 87 reticks, that they altogether teach blajphemous and impious and foolifl) things : for how is this a confirmation or reafbn of, or any way pertinent unto what went before ? if there he fpeak of none but fuch as were, purapiaque Chriftianorum fententia, of the pure and holy opinion of Chriftians . And therefore to difguile this inconfequence, the Tran- flator has thought fit to make life of a falfe Tranflation, and inftead of for I have told you, to make it, be- fides I have told you of many, &c\ Again, if Jufiin Martyr had thought this the pure and holj> Ofh an of Chriftians, or them good and holy Chriftians that held it ; why does he rank them with them that denyed the Refurre&ion ? Why does he fay afterward — Although you chance to meet with Jome that are called Chriftians which do not confefs this, do not ye think them Chriftians. Laftly, what fenfe is there 111 faying as he does 1 and all Chrifiians that are of aright belief in all things, believe the Doclrine of the thouf and years, and that the Scriptures both of the Old and New Tefiament- teach it, and yet fay That many of the pure and holy opinion of Chriftians do not believe it ? Upon the fe reafons I fuppofe it is evident, that the place has been corrupted, and it is to be corrected according as [ have corrected it, by fubftituting « in the place of ^ (not) inftead of (alfo.) Neither need any man think ftrange thar this misfortune of the change of a Syllable mould befai this place, who con- fiders that in this place Jufiin Martyr tells us that he had (aid the fame things before, whereas nothing to this pur- pofe appears now in him. And that in Vibhrinus com- ment on the Revelation, wherein, ( by S. Hieroms acknow- - ledgment) this Doctrine was itrongly maintained, there now appears nothing at all for it,but rather againft it. And now from the place thus reitored, thefe Obfervations offer themfelves unto us. 1 . That Jufiin Martyr fpeaks not as a Doctor, but as a witnefs of the Do&rine of the Church of his time. I (faith he) and all, Chriftians that are of a right belief in all things hold this : And therefore from hence according to Cardinal Ferrons Rule, we are to conclude, not probably but demonftratively, that this was the Do&nne of the Church of that time. 2. That g& " rA CONFERENCE betwixt 1. That they held it as a neceflary matter, fb far as to hold them no Chriftians that held the Contrary : though you chance to meet with for/ie called Chriftians that do not con- fefs this, but dare to Blafyheme the God of Abraham, Ifaac 'and Jacob, &c. Tet do not ye think them Chrifiians : Now if Bellar mines Rule be true, that Councils then determine any thing as matters of Faith, when they pronounce them Hereticks that hold the Contrary ; then fure Ju(Hn Martyr held this Doctrine as a matter of Faith, feeing he pro- nounceth them no Chriftians, that contradict it. ;. That the Doctrine is grounded upon the Scripture of the Old and New Teftament and the Revelation of S. JohnK and that by a Doctor and Martyr, of the Church, and iuch a one as was converted to Chriftianity within jo years after the Death of S. John, when in all probability there were many alive, that had heard him expound his own words and teach this Doctrine : and if probabilities will not be admitted,this is certain out of the moft authen- tical records of the Church, that Papias the Difciple of the Apoftles Difciples taught it the Church, profeffing that he had received it from them that learned it from the Apoftles : and if after all this, the Church of thofe Times might Err in a Doctrine fb clearly derived and au- thentically delivered, how without extream impudence can any Church in after times, pretend to Infallibility. The Millenaries Do&rine was over-born, by imputing to them that which they held not ; by abrogating the Au- thority of S.Johns Revelation^ fbme did : or by derogat- ing from it, as others; afcribing it not to S. John the Apo- ftle, but to fome other John, they know not who : which Dwnyfius the firft known adverfary of this doctrine and his followers ; againft the Tradition ofclrenaus, Juftin Martyr, and all the Fathers their Anteceflbrs : by calling it a Judaical opinion and yet allowing it as probable by corrupting the Authors for it, as Jufrin, Viclorinw, Se- ven/*. NI.A Mr. Chillingworch an J A/KLewgar. %j VI. ^ Letter relating to the fame SubjeEL II 5 112, I Pray remember, that if a confent of Fathers eithei conftitute or declare a Truth to be neceflary, or mew the opinion of the Church of their Time ; then that opi- nion of the Jefuits, concerning Predeftination upon pres- ence (which had no oppofer before S. Auftin) muft be fb, and the contrary Heretical of the Dominicans; and the prefent Church differs from the Ancient, in not efteeming ' of it as they did. Secondly, I pray remember, that if the Fathers be in- fallible, (when they fp^kas witnefles of Tradition) to mew the opinion of the Church of their Time, then the opini- on of the Chilians (which now is a Herefie in the Church of Rome ) was once Tradition in the Opinion of the Church. Thirdly, Since S. Auftin had an opinion, that of what- fbever no beginning was known, that came from the A- poftles, many Fathers might fay things to be Tradition upon that ground only ; but of this Opinion of the Chi- lians, one of the ancienteft Fathers Irenam fays not onely that it was Tradition, but fets down Chrifts own words when he taught it, and the pedigree of the opinion from Chrift a to John his Difciple; from him to feveral Pnefts (whereof Tapas was one who put it in writing) and fb downwards; which can be ihewn from no other Father, for no other opinion, either controverted, or uncontrover- ted. Fourthly, That if Papias either by his own error, or a delire to deceive, could cozen the Fathers of the pureft age in this, why not alio in other things 2 why not in twen- ty as well as one, why not twenty others as well as he. Fifthly,That if the Fathers could be cozened, how could general Councils fcape ? who you fay make Tradition one of their Rules, which can only be known from the Fathers ? ' N Sixthly, 91 A CONFERENCE betwixt Sixthly, If theyobjed, how could errors come in, and no beginning of them known ? I pray remember to ask them the fame Queftion concerning the Millenaries, which lafted uncontradicted, until Dionyfiu* Alexandrinm two hundred and fifty years after Chriit; and if they tell you that Tafias was the firft beginner, look in Irenam, and he will tell you the contrary. (Loco citato 1. 5. c. 5 3.) Seventhly, Remember, that if I ought not to condemn the Church of Rome out of Scripture, becaufe my interpre- tation may deceive me ; then they ought not to build their Infallibility upon it (and left upon her own word) be- caufe theirs may deceive them : unleft the fame thing may be a wall when you lean upon it, and a bulrufh when we do. Eighthly, Remember that they cannot fay, they truft not their Interpretation in this, but a cftnfent of Fathers ; be- caufe the Fathers are not /aid to be infallible, but as they tell the Opinion of the Church of their time, which is in- fallible : therefore they muft firft prove out of Scripture that flie is infallible, or elfe /he (who is her felf the fubjed of the Queftion) cannot be allowed till then to give a ver- did for her (elf. Ninthly, Remember the Rowan Church claims no Notes of the Church, but what agree with the Grecian too (as An- tiquity, Succeffion, Miracles, &c.) but onely Communion with the Pope and Splendor; both which made for the Ar- rians in Liberia* his time ; and it were a hard Cafe, that becaufe the Greeks are poor upon Earth, they fliould be /hut out of Heaven. Tenthly, Remember that if we have an Infallible way, we have no ufe (at leaft no neceffity) of an Infallible Guide ; for if we may be faved by following the Scripture as near as we can (though we err) it is as good as any Interpreter to keep unity in charity (which is only needful) though not in opinion : and this cannot be ridiculous, becaufe they fay, if any man mi/interpret the Council of Trent, it fliall not damn him ; and why (without more ado) may not the fame be /aid of Scripture? VII. An Mr. Chitlingworth and Mr. Lcvrgar. 91 VII. An Argument againjl the Infallibility of the prefent Church of Rome, taken from the Con- tradictions in your VoHrin of Tranfubjian- tiation. CbillingwQrtLhT*Hat Church is not infallible, which teach- J. eth Contradictions : But the Church of Rome teacheth Contradictions. Therefore the Church of Rome is not infallible. Mr. Daniel. I deny the Minor. Chilling. That Church teacheth Contradi&ions, which teacheth fuch a Dodrin as contains Contradictions : But the Church of Rome teacheth fuch a Do&nn : Therefore the Church of Rome teacheth Contradictions. Mr. Daniel. I deny the Minor. Chilling. The Doctrin of Tranfubftantion contains Con-' tradi&ions : But the Church of Rome teacheth the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation : Therefore the Church of Rome teacheth fuch a Do&nn as contains Contradi&ions. Mr. Dan. I deny the Major. Chilling. That the fame thing at the fame time mould have the true figure of a mans body, and mould not have the true figure of a mans body, is a Contradiction : But in the Dodxin of Tranfubftantiation it is taught, that the fame thing, (viz,, our Saviour prefent in the Sacrament) has the true figure of a mans body, and has not the true figure of a mans body at the fame time ; therefore the Do&rin of Tranfubftantiation contains Contradictions. Mr. Dan. The Major, though not having all ruies re- quired to a contradiction (as boys m Logick know) yet let it pafs. Chilling. Boys in Logick know no more conditions re- quired to a Contradiction, but that the fame thing mould be affirmed and denied of the fame thing at the fame time. For my meaning was, that that mould not be accounted the fame thing, which was confidered after divers man- ners. N 2 Mr. Dan. "A CONFERENCE bet: Mr. Ban. I deny the Minor of your iyllogifm. Chilling. I prove it, according to the (everal parts of it: And firft, for the firft part. He muft have the Figure of a mans body in the Eucharift, who is there without any i eal alteration or difference from the natural body of a man: But our Saviour, according to the Romtjh Doclrin of Tran- : -nrutlon, is in die Sacrament without any real alt :;:ce from the natural bodv of a man : There- according to this Dodrin he muft there have the fi- . of a mans body. To the iecond part, that he muft not have the figure of a mans body in the Sacramentj ac- cording to this Doctrm, thus I prove it. He muft not h^YQ the figure ot a mans body in the Eucharift, which muft not have extenhon there : P 6u S a i :»urs body, ac- cording to the Doctrin of Tranlubftantiation, muft not have extenhon there ; Theretoie, according to* this do- (frrin, he muft not have the figure of a mans body there. The Major of this Syllogiim I proved, becauie the figure of a mans bodv could not be without extenhon. The Minor I proved thus ; That muft not have extenhon in the r, whole every part is together in one and the lame point: But according to this Docrnn, every part of our Saviours body muft be here in one and the lame point : therefore here it muft not have extenhon. Mr. Dan. Anfwered, by diftinguifhing the Major of the firft Syllogifm, and laid; that he muft not have the true figure of a mans body, according to the reafon of a figure taken in its eilential conhderation, which is to have pofiti- cnem part mm fie & fie extra partes ; but not the accidental conhderation, which is in or dim ad locum. And this arr- iwer he applied for the fblution of the Minor, faying thus. Our Saviour is there without any real alteration intrinle- cal, but not extnnfecal ; for he is not changed in order to himfelf, but in order to place : Or other wile, he is not al- tered in his continual exiftence, which is only modus ejj'en- tia and inieparable even by divine power, though altered :n modo exijtendt> which is fituation and required to figure :aken in order to place. ChiUing. Mr. Chjllingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 9 ; ift this : ! plied bv ~'^t .•nans body as conficered in i A in re: to place, is vain, and nc mould . parts one ( - another : : , and : without eral pk : ftmction is vair. -71 he to a per place of ~gthe cemenlr, nrerl : ■ . . .d cor. Ajgnmen :i; If n and belfy and thighs and legs be all in the - my head muft be in ray in m; and my thighs in my k ..i«m in my feet, and mv fzzt in all of them ; and therefor ead be out of my belly, it: !ace my belly to mew that according to f 5 D ~xxrin c I du-ii^; : . thus : - . . . ■ s: B~: .... ■ : ::.:. . Mr. Dim Tj all d .-.: of a I gave i>f &U, Schoh :»n, he : tide of the iaJt v ^uoad em it a. m t/3 nm oxoaA tecum y 94 A CONFERENCE betwixt place. And to (Let all Scholars perufe thefe) he caufed this to be added ; And weigh whether there is any new matter 9 worth a new Anfwer. ChiUingworth Replyed, That to fay the extreme parts of a body are levered by the middle parts according to their entity, but not according to place, is ridiculous. His rea- sons are firft, Becaufe fevering of things is nothing el(e, but putting or keeping them in feveral places, as every fil- ly woman knows ; and therefore to fay, they are fevered but not according to place, is as if you Ihould fay, They are heated, but not according to heat ; they are cooled, but not according to cold : Indeed is it to fay, they are fevered, but not fevered. VIII. An account of what mo*ved the Author to turn a (Papijl, with his own Confutation of the Argu- ments that perfwaded him thereto. 1 Reconciled my felf to the Church of Rome, becaufe I thought my felf to have fufficient reafbn to believe, that there was and muft be always in the World fbme Church, that could not err : and confequently feeing all other Churches difclaimed this priviledge of not being fubjed to error ; the Church of Rome muft be that Church which cannot err. I was put into doubt of this way which I had chofen, by D.Stapleton and others; who limit the Churches freedom from Error to things neceflary only, and fuch as without which the Church can be a Church no longer, but grant- tcd it fubject to error in things that were not neceflary : Hereupon confidenng that moft of the differences be- tween Protefiants and Reman Catholicks ; were not touch- ing things neceflary, but only profitable or lawful; Icon- eluded, that I had not fufficient ground to believe the Ro- man Church either could not or did not er; in any thing, and therefore no ground to be a Roman Catholick. Againft Mr. Chillingworth and Mr. Lewgar. 95 Againft this again I was perf waded, that it was not fuf- ficient to believe the Church to be an infallible believer of all do&rins neceflary ; but it muft alfo be granted an in- fallible teacher of what is neceflary ; that is, that we muft believe not only that the Church teacheth all things ne- ceflary, but that all is neceflary to be believed, which the Church teacheth to be fo : in effed, that the Church is our Guide in the way to Heaven. Now to believe that the Church was an infallible Guide, and to be believed in all things which fhe requires us to be- lieve, I was induced : Firft, becaufe there was nothing that could reafbnably conteft with the Church about this Office, but the Scripture : and that the Scripture was this Guide, I was willing to believe, but that I law not how it could be made good, without depending upon the Churches authority. i. That Scripture is the Word of God. 2. That the Scripture is a perfect rule of our duty. ;. That the Scripture is fo plain in thole things that con- - cern our duty, that whofoever defires and endeavors to find the will of God, there IKall either find it, or at lean: not dangeroufly miftake it. Secondly, I was drawn to this belief, becaufe I concei- ved that it was evident, out of the Epiftle to the Ephefians, that there muft be unto the worlds end a Succeflion of Pa- llors, by adhering to whom, men might be kept from wavering in matters of faith, and from being carried up and down with every wind of falfe do&rin. That no Succeflion of Paftors could guard their adhe- rents from danger of error, if themlelves were fubjecl: un- to error, either in teaching that to be neceflary which is not lb, or denying that to be neceflary which is lb : and therefore. That there was and muft be fbme Succeflion of Paftors, which was an infallible guide in the way to Heaven; and which fhould not poffibly teach any thing to be neceflary which was not lb ; nor any thing not neceflary which was lb: upon this ground I concluded, that feeing there muft be fuch a Succeflion of Paftors, as was an infallible guide ; and 96 A CONFERENCE betwixt and there was no other (but that of the Church of Rome) even by the confeflion of all other Societies of Paftors in the world ; that therefore that Succeflion of Paftors is that infallible Guide of Faith which all men muft follow. Upon thefe grounds I thought it neceffary for my falva- tion, to believe the Roman Church, in all that me thought to be, and propofed as neceflary. Againft thefe Arguments it hath been demonfi-rated un- to me ; and Firft againft the firft. That the reafon why we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, neither is nor can be the Authority of the prefent Church of Rome> which cannot make good her Authority any other way, but by pretence of Scripture : and therefore ftands not unto Scripture (no not in reipecl: of us) in the relation of a Foundation to a building, but of a building to a Foundation, doth not fupport Scripture, but is fupported by it. But the general conlent of Chriftians of all Nati- ons and Ages, a far greater company than that of the Church of Rome, and delivering univerfally the Scripture for the word of God, is the ordinary external reafon why we believe it: whereunto the Teftimonies of the Jews, enemies of Chrift, add no f mall moment for the Autho- rity of lome part of it. That whatfbever flood upon the fame ground of Uni- verfal Tradition with Scripture, might juftly challenge belief, as well as Scripture : but that no Do&rin not written in Scripture, could juftly pretend to as full Tradi- tion as the Scripture, and therefore we had no reafon to believe it with that degree of faith, wherewith we believe the Scripture. That it is unreafbnable to think, that he that reads the Scripture, and ufes all means appointed for this purpofe, withanearneft defire and with no other end, but to find the will of God and obey it, if he miftake the meaning of fbme doubtful places, and fill unwillingly into fbme errors, unto which no vice or paflion betrays him, and is willing to hear reafon from any man that will undertake to mew him his error : I fay, that it is unreafbnable to think, that a God of goodnefs will impute fuch an error to luch a man. Againft Mr. Chillingworth WM-.Lewgar. 97 Againft the fecond it was demonftrated unto me, that the place I built on fb confidently , was no Argument at all for the Infallibility of the Succeflion of Paftors in the Roman Church, but a very ftrong Argument againft it. Firft, no Argument for it ; became it is not certain, nor can ever be proved, that S.Paul {peaks thereof any fuc- ceffion ; Ephef.4. n, 11, 1;. For let that be granted which is deiired, that in the 1 %. ver. by [until we all meei] is meant, until all the Children of God meet in the Uni- ty of Faith ; that is, unto the Worlds end : yet it is not laid there, that he gave Apoftles and Prophets, dec. which flmld continue, &c. until we all meet, by conne6ti.ng the 1 ;.iw. to the 1 1. But he gave (then upon his Afcenfion and miraculoufly endowed) Apoftles and Prophets, &c. for the work of the.miniftiy,fbr the Confummation of the Saints, for the Edification of the Body of Chrift/mtil we all meet, that is, if you will, unto the Worlds end. Neither is there any incongruity, but that the Apoftles and Pro- phets, &c which lived then, may in good fenle be faid, now at this time and ever hereafter to do thole things which they are faid to do : For who can deny but S. Paul the Apoftle and Doctor of the Gentiles, and S. John the Evangelift and Prophet, do at this very time (by their writings, though not by their perfbns) do the work of the miniftry, conliimmate the Saints, and Edihe the Lo- dy of Chrift. Secondly, it cannot be fhewn or proved from hence, that there is or was to be any fuch fuccetlion: becaufe S. Paul here tells us only, that he gave fuch in the time paft, not that he promifed fuch in the time to come. Thirdly, it is evident, that God promifed no fuch fucceffion, becaufe it is not certain that he hath made good any iuch promife ; for who is fb impudent as to pre- tend, that there are now, and havq. been in all Ages hnce Chrift, fbme Apoftles and lbme Prop "^ arid lbme Evm- gelifts and fbme Pa (tors and Teachers : _ ?mlly fuch as he here fpeaks of, that is, endowed with iuch gift Chrift gave upon his Afceniion ; of which he fpeaks in the 8 ver. laying; He led Captivity Captive, and gave gifts O uu:o gl A CO NFER ENCE betwixt mto men. And that thofe gifts were Men endowed with extraordinary Power and Supernatural gifts- it is apparent, becaufe thefe Words, and hegavefome Apo- ftles y Jome Prophets, &c. are added by way of explication and iiluft ration of that which was (aid before and he gave gifts unto Men : And if any man except hereunto, that though the Apoftles and Prophets and Evangehfts were extraordinary and for the Plantation of the Gofpel, yet Pa- ftors were ordinary and for continuance: I anfwer,it is true, fbme Paftors are ordinary and for continuance, but not fuch as are here fpoken of: not fuch as are endowed with the ftrange and heavenly gifts, which Chrift gave not on- ly to the Apoftles and Prophets and Evangehfts, but to the inferior Paftors and Doctors of his Church, at the firft Plantation of it : And therefore S. Paul in the ifr. to the Corinth. 12. a8. (to which place we are referred by the Margent of the Vulgar Tranflation, for the explica- tion of this,) places this gift of teaching amongft, and prefers it before many other miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghoft : Paftors there are ftill m the Church, but not fuch as Titus and Timothy and Apollo s and Barnabas : not fuch as can juftly pretend to immediate infpiration and illumi- nation of the Holy Ghoft: And therefore feeing there neither are nor have been for many Ages in the Church, fuch Apoftles and Prophets, &c as here are fpoken of, It is certain he promifed none; or otherwife we muft blaf phemoufly charge him with breach of his promife. Secondly, I anfwer, that if by dedit he gave, be meant fromifit) he promifed for ever ; then all were promifed and all mould have continued. If by dedit be not meant promt- fit, then he promifed none fuch, nor may we exped: any fuch by vertue of, or warrant from this Text that is here alledged : And thus much for the firft AiTumpt which was, that the place was no Argument for an infallible flicceffion in the Church of Rome. Now for the fecond, That it is a ftrong Argument againft it, thus I make it good. The Apoftles and Prophets and Evangehfts and Paftors, which bur Saviour gave upon his Aiceniion, were given by Mr. Chilling worth and Mr, Lewgar. 9^ by him that they might Confamraate the Saints, do the work of the Miniftry, Edifie the Body of Chrift, until we all come into the Unity of Faith, that we be no: like Children wavering and carried up and down with every wind of Do&rine. The Apoftles and Prophets, &c. that then were, do not now in their own per Ions and by oral inftru&ion do the work of the Miniftry, to the intent we may be kept from wavering and being carried up and down with every wind of Do&rine : there- fore they do this fbme other way : Now there is no other way by which they can do it, but by their writings ; and therefore by their writings they do it : therefore by their writings and believing of them we are to be kept from wavering in matters of Faith : therefore the Scriptures of the Apoftles and Prophets and Evangelifts are our Guides. Therefore not the Church of Rome. F I 3S(iI S. ANSWER To Some PASSAGES I N Rujh worths Dialogues. BEGINNING At the Third Dialogue Section i 2. p. 1 8 1 . Ed. Taris, 1654.. ABOUT TRADITIONS. LONDON, Printed for James Adamfon, at the Angel in S. Pauls Church- Yard, 1687. ' ANSWER To Ibme pafTages in Rufhwortbs Dialogues. BEGINNING AT The Third Dialogue, §. ix. p. 181. Ed. Paris, 16^4. ABOUT TRADITIONS. Uncle. "T\0 Vou think there is fuch a City as Rome jLJ or Confiantinople? Nephew. That I do, I would I knew what I ask as well. C HIL LINGIVORTH. Firft I mould have anfwered that in propriety of Speech I could not fay that I knew it, but that I did as undoubted- ly believe it, as thofe things which I did know. For though (as I conceive,) we may be properly faid to believe that which we know, yet we cannot fay truly, that we know that which we only believe upon report and hearfay, be it never (b conftant, never lb general : For feeing the gene- rality of men is made up of particulars, and every parti- cular man may deceive and be deceived, it is not lmpof- fible, though exceedingly improbable, that all men mould confpire An Anfwer to fome TaJJages confpire to do fo. Yet I deny not that the popular phrafe of Speech will very well bear, that we may fay we know that which in truth we only believe, provided the grounds of our belief be morally certain. Neither do I take any exception to the Nephews an- fwers, made to his Uncles 2, $,4. and 5. Interrogatories. But grant willingly as to the firft, that it is not much ma- terial whether I remember or not any particular Author of fuch a general and conftant report. Then, that the Teftimony of one or two Witnefles, though never fo credible, could add nothing to that belief which is alrea- dy at the height, nay perhaps that my own feeing thefe Cities would make no acceffion, add no degree to the ftrength and firmnefs of my Faith concerning this mat- ter, only it would change the kind of my aflent, and make me know that which formerly I did but believe. To the fourth, that feeming Reafons are not much to be regarded againft fenfe or experience and moral Cer- tainties (but withal I mould have told my Uncle, that I fear his fuppohtion is hardly poffible, and that the nature of the thing will not admit, that there mould be any great, nay any probable reafons invented to perfwade me that there never was fuch a City as London) and therefore if any man mould go about to perfwade me that there never was fuch a City as London \ That there were no fuch men as called themfelves, or were called by others Proteflants, in England, in the days of QElizabeth ^evhaps fuch a mans Wit might delight me, but his reafons lure would never perfwade me. Hitherto we mould have gone hand in hand together, but whereas in the next place lie fays In like manner then you do not doubt, but a Catholick living in a Catholich Country 3 may undoubtedly know what was the piblich Religi- on of his Country in his Fathers days, and that fo ajjuredly that \t were a meermadnefs for him to doubt thereof . — I ihould have craved leave to tell my Uncle that he premmed too fdv upon his Nephews yielding difpoiition. For that as it is a far more eafie thing to know, and more authen- tically tcftified, that there were fbme men called Prote- teftants in Rum worth's Dialogues. 105 ftants by themfelves and others, than what opinions thefe Proteftants held, divers men holding divers things, which yet were all called by this name. So is it far more eafie for a Roman Catholick to know that in his Fathers days there were fome men, for their outward Communion with and iubordination to the Biihop of Rome called Roman Catholicks, than to know what was the Religion of thofe men who went under this name. For they might be as different one from another in their belief, as fomc Proteftants are from others. As for example, had I lived before the Lateran Council which condemned Beren^aru/s , poffibly I might have known that the belief of the Real presence of Chnft in the Sacrament was part of the publick Do&rine of my Country : But whether the Real abfence of the Bread and Wine after Confecration, and their Tranfubftantiation into Chrifts Body, were hkewife Catholick Do&rine at that time, thaty I could not have known, feeing that all men were at liberty to hold it was fb, or it was not fb. Moreover I mould have told my Uncle, that living now, I know it is Catholick Doctrine, That the Souls of theBlef- fed enjoy the Vifion of God : But if I had lived in the Reign of Pope John the XXII, I mould not have known that then it was fb, confidering that many good Catholicks be- fore that time had believed, and then, even the Pope him- felf did believe the contrary :• and he is warranted by Bellarmine for doing fb, becaufe the Church had not then defined it. I ihould have told him further that either Catholicks of the prefent time do fb differ in their belief, that what fbme hold lawful and pious, others condemn as unlawful and impious : or elie that all now content, and confequently make it Catholick Doctrine, That it is not unlawful to make the ufual Pictures of the Trinity > and to fet them in Churches to be adored. But had I lived in S. Aufitns time, I mould then have been taught another Leilbn: To wit,thac this Doclrine and practice was impious, and the contrary Do&rine Catholick. log An An fiver to fome Paffages I mould have told him that now I was taught that the Doctrine of Indulgences was an Apoftolick Tradition : but had I lived 600 years fince, and found that in all an- tiquity there was no ufe of them : I fhould either have thought the Primitive Church no faithful Steward in de- frauding mens Souls of this Treafure intended by God to them, and fo neceflary for them, or rather that the Do- ctrine of Indulgences now pradifed in the Church of Rome was not then Catholick. I mould have told him that the general practice of Roman Catholicks now taught me that it was a pious thing to offer Incenfe and Tapers to the Saints and to their Pictures : But had I lived in the Primitive Church, I mould with the Church have condemned it in the Collyridians as Heretical. I mould have reprefented to him Erafmm his complaint againft the Proteftants, whofe departing from the Roman Church occasioned the determining,and exacting the belief of many points as neceflary, wherein before Luther men enjoyed the Liberties of their Judgments a?nd Tongues and Pens. Antea, faies he, licebat de Purgatorio : nunc tutum non eft hifcere, ne de his qmdemy qua pie the Fountain of the Error in this matter is this : That the whole Religion of the Roman Church and every point of it, is conceived or pretended to have irTiied Originally out of the Fountain of Apoftolick Tradition, either in themfelves or in the principles from which they are evidently deducible. Whereas it is evident that many of their Doctrines, may be Originally derived from the Decrees of Councils, many from Papal definiti- ons, many from the Authority7 of fome great Man ; To which purpofe it is very remarkable what Gregory NazJan- Zen fays of Athanafitts. * What pleafed him was a law to men, * t^ fog* what did not pleafe him was as a thing prohibited by Law ; ft®- ttwriit l his Decrees were to them like Moles his Tables, and he had ^ c*«^ €«&• a greater veneration paid him than (eems to be due from men V' > X5" TdV> to baints. Ktv * x ^'. And as memorable that in the late great Controveriie K^ £ Tfrdw about Predetermination and Free-will, difputed before M«6'ai®$ '^ut7a>v x^ define for that opinion which was moft agreeable, not to ^ * 77U^I &. Scripture, nor to Apoftolick Tradition, nor to a confent ^ttwv ™V of Fathers, but to the Do&rine of S. Aufim : ib that &}iw o?has- if the Pope had made an Article of Faith of this Contro- w.OratXXI. verfie, it is evident S. Aufim had been the Rule of it. Athanafii!*1 Sometimes upon erroneous grounds Cuftoms have been brought in, God knows how, and after have fpread them- ielves through the whole Church. Thus Gordonius Hum- leius confefles, that becaufe Baptilm and the Eucharift had been anciently given both together to men of ripe years, when they were converted to Chnftianity; Afterwards by Error when Infants were Baptized, they gave the Eu- charift alfb to Infants. This Cuftom in fhort time grew Univerfal, and in S. Auftins time parted currantly for an Apoftolick Tradition, and the Eucharift was thought as neceflary for them as Baptifm. This Cuftom the Church of Rome hath again caft out, and in lb doing profeft ei- . ther no An Anfivtr to fome Vaffages ther her no regard to the traditions of the Apoftles, or that this was none of that number. But yet (tie cannot poflibly avoid but that this example is a proof fuffieient that many things may get in by Error into the Church, and by degrees obtain the efteem and place of Apoftolick Traditions which yet are not fb. The Cuftom of denying the Laity the Sacramental Cup, and the Doctrine that it is lawful to do fb, who can pre- tend to derive from Apoftolick Tradition ? Efpecially *S^XIII. when the * Council of Conftance the Patron of it, con- fefles that Chrifrs inftitution was under both kinds, and that the faithful in the Primitive Church received it in both. Licet Chriftm, &c. Although Chrifi after his Sup- per infiituted and admimftred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds.- Although in the Primitive Church this Sacra- ment were received by the faithful under both kinds. Non obftante, &c. Yet all this nofwithftanding this Cufiomfor the avoiding of Sca?idals (to which the Primitive Church was as obnoxious as the prefent is) was upon juft reafon brought in3 that Laicks (Jjould receive only under one kind. Brought in therefore it was, and fb is one of thofe Doctrines which Lerinenfis calls — induBa non tradita3 in- vent a non accepta, &c therefore all the Doctrine of the 'Roman Church does not defcend from Apoftolick Tra- dition. But if this Cuftom came not from the Apoftles, from what Original may we think that it defended ? Certain- tainly from no other than from the belief of the fubftan- rial prcfence of whole Chrift under either kind. For this opinion being once fetled in the Peoples minds, that they had as much by one kind as by both; both Prieft and People quickly began to think it fuperfluous, to do the fame thing twice at the fame time; and thereupon, being (as I f uppofe) the Cuftom required that the Bread fhould be received firfr, having received that, they were contented that the Prieft fhould lave the pains, and the Parifh the charge of unncccflary reiteration. This is my Gonje&ure which I fubmit to better judgments ; but w he- ir be true or falfe, one thing from hence is certain, That in Rufh worths Dialogues. 1 7 1 That immemorial Cuftoms may by degrees prevail upon the Church, ilich as have no known beginning nor Au- thor, of which yet this may be evidently known, that their beginning whenfoever it was, was many years, nay, many Ages after theApoftlcs. * S. Paul commands that nothing be done in the Church r ^ I4 2 but for edification. He fays, and if that be not enough, he proves in the fame place, that it is not for edifica- tion that either Publick Prayers,Thank(giving and Hymns to God, or Dodtrine to the People ihould be in any Lan- guage which the Affiftants generally underfrand not; and thereupon forbids any fuch practice though it were in a 27, il Language miraculoufly infufed into the fpeaker by the Holy Ghoft : unlefs he himfelf or fome other preicnt could and would interpret. He tells us that to do other- wife is to fpeak into the Air : That it is to play the Bar- 9. n. b avians to one another : That to fuch Bleffings and Thank f- givings, the ignorant for want of underftanding cannot Wy Amen. He clearly intimates that to think otherwise [■' is to be Children in underftanding. Laftly, in the end of the Chapter he tells all that were Prophets and Spiritu- al among the Corinthians, That the things written by him 37- are the Commandments of God. Hereupon Lyranus up* on the place acknowledgeth that in the Primitive Church, Bleflings and all other Services were done in the Vulgar Tongue. Cardinal Cajeton likewife upon the place tells us that out of this Doctrine of S. Paul it is confequent. That it were better for the Edification of the Church, that the publick Prayers which are laid in the People* hearing, mould be delivered in a Language common both to the Clergy and the People. And I am confident that the Learnedft Antiquary in the Rjman Church can* not, nay that Baronms himfelf, were he alive again, could not produce lb much as one example of anv one Church, one City, one Pariih in all the Christian Wo~ld, for five hundred years after Chnft, where the Sermons to the People were in one Language, and the Service in another. Now it is confeft on all hands to be agamft fenle and reafbn, that Sermons mould be made to the People in any 112 An Anfw^r to fome Paffages any Language not underftood by thsm, and therefore it follows of neceffity, that their Service likewife was in thofe Tongues which the People of the place underftood. But what talk we of 500. years after Chrift? when even the Later an Council held in the year 121 5. makes this Decree. Quoniam in plertfque Becauje in many parts "within the fame City and Dtocefs, People are mixed of divers Languages 3 having under one Faith divers rites and fafluons^ we ftricUy command that the Bifiwps of the {aid Cities or Dio- cefes provide fit and able men> who according to the diver- fines of their Rites and Languages may celebrate Divine Ser- vices and adminifter the Sacraments of the Church 3 infiruclmg them both in word and example. Now after all this if any man will ftill maintain, that the Divine Service in unknown Tongues is a matter of Apoftolick Tradition, I mud needs trunk the World is grown very impudent. There are divers Dodrines in the Roman Church which have not to be received into the number of Articles of Faith ; which yet prefi very hard for it, and through the impor- tunity and multitude of their Attorneys that plead for them, in procefs of time may very probably be admitted. Of this rank are the Bleffed Virgins Immaculate concep- tion, The Popes Infallibility in determining Controverfies, His fuperionty to Councils, His indirect Power over Princes in Temporalties, &c. Now as thefe are not yet matters of Faith and Apoftolick Traditions, yet in after Ages in the days of our great Grandchildren may very probably become fo3 ib why fliould we not fear and fuf- pe&, that many things now pa(s currantly as points of Faith which Ecclefia ab Apoftolis, Apoftoh d Chrift o, Chrift hs d Deo reccpit, which perhaps in the days of our great Grand- fathers had no fiich reputation. Cardinal Perron teaches us two Rules whereby to know the Do&rine of the Church in any Age. The firft is when the moil: eminent Fathers of any Age agree in the affir- mation of any Do&rine, and none of their Contempo- raries oppofe or condemn them, that is to be accounted the in Ruin worth's Dialogues. I j $ the Doctrine of the Church. The fecond : when one or more of thefe Eminent Fathers, (peak of anyDo&rine not as Doctors but as witnefles, 'and fay., not, I think foy or holdfo, but, the Church holds and believes this to be Truth. This is to be accounted the Do&rine of the Church. Now if neither of thefe Rules be good and certain, then are we deftitute of all means to know what was the pablick Do&nine of the Church in the days of our Fathers. But on the other fide, if either of them be true, we run into a worfe inconvenience ; for then furely the Do&rme of the Millinanes muft be acknowledged to have been the Do&rine of the Church in the very next Age afcer the Apoftles. For both the moft eminent Fathers of that time, and even all whole Monuments are extant, or men- tion made of them, *viz>, Juflin Martyr J.renteus, Tertullian> Melito Sardenfis, agree in the affirmation of this point, and none of their contemporary writers oppofe or con- demn it : And befides they {peak not as Do&ors but as Witnefles, not as of their own private opinion, but as Apoftolick Tradition and the Doctrine of the Church. Horantius and out of him Francifcus a Sancla Clara teach us that under the Gofpel there is no where extant any precept of Invocating Saints, and tell us that the Apo- ftles reafbn of their giving no fuch precept was, left the converted Gentiles might think themfelves drawn over from one kind of Idolatry to another. If this reafbn be good, I hope then the pofition whereof it is the reafbn is true, viz,, that the Apoftles did neither command nor teach, nor advife, nor perfiiade the converted Gentiles to invocate Saints, for the reafbn here rendred ferves for all alike, and if they did not, and for this reafbn. did not fo : how then in Gods name comes invocation of Saints to be an Apoftolick Tradition ? The Do&rines of Purgatory, Indulgences,and Prayer to deliver Souls out of Purgatory are 16 clofely conjoyned, that they muft either ftand or fall together; at leaft, the firft being the Foundation of the other two, if that be not Apoftolick Tradition, the reft cannot be fo. And if that be fb, what meant the Author of the Book of Wif- Q. dom 1 14 An Anjwer to Jome Pajjages dom to tell us that (after Death) the Souls of the righteous are in the hand of Gcdi and there jliall no torment touch them. What means S. John to teach us. That they are Blefjed which Die in the Lord, for that they reft from their Labours. But above all what meant Bifhop FiJJjer in his Confutation of Lathers allertion fb to prevaricate as to me he feems to do in the 1 8 th. Art. in frying., multos fortafje movet, &c. Per advent ure many are moved not to place too great Faith in Indulgences, becauje the ufe of them may feem not of * T/ »re f re it l°ng finding in the Church, and a very late invention among k not true Christians. To whom I anfwer that * it is not certain by that all the whom they began fir ft to be taught. Tet fvme ufe there was Roman Do- of them, as they Jay very Ancient among the Romans, which ttrines were we are grocn t0 understand by the Stations which were S° Chrift and his frge[uente^ m ^'jat ^irJ' Moreover they fay Gregory- the Apofiles. firfi grated fome in his time. And after Cater um ut dicere coepimus, &c. -But as we were faying, there are many things of which in the Primitive Church no mention was made, which yet upon doubts ari/ing are become perspicuous through the diligence of after times. Certainly, (10 return to our bufi- nefs) no Orthodox man now doubts whether there be a Pur- gatory, of which yet among the Ancients there was made ve- ry rare or no mention. Moreover the Greeks to this very day believe not Purgatory. Who fo will let him read the writings of the Ancient Greeks, and I think he fiall find no Speech of Purgatory, or elfe very rarely. The Latines alfo received not this verity all at once but by little and little. Neither was the Faith whether of Purgatory or Indulgences fo neceffary in the Primitive Church as now it is, for then Charity was fo fervent that every one was moft ready to Die for Chrift. Crimes were very rare, and thofe which were, were punified by the Canons with great feverity. But now a great part of the People would rather put off Chriftianiiy than fuffer the rigour of the Canons. That not without the great Wifdom of the Holy Spirit, it hath come to pafs that after the . courfe of fo many years, the Faith of Purgatory and the ufe of Indul- gences hath been by the Orthodox generally received as long as there was no care of Purgatory, no man looked after InduU gences, for all the Credit of Indulgences depends on that. Take away • in Rum worth's Dialogues. 1 1 j away "Purgatory and what need is there of Indulgences. We therefore confidering that Purgatory was a long while unknown. That after, partly upon Revelations partly upon Scripture it was believed by fome, and that fo at length the Faith of it was mofl generally received by the Orthodox Church, foall eafily find out fome reafon of Indulgences. Seeing therefore it was fo late ere Purgatory was known and received by the Univerfal Church, who now can wonder touching Indulgences, that in the Primi- tive Church there was no ufe of them ? Indulgences therefore ■began after men had trembled a while at the Jor?nents of Pur- gatory. For then it is credible the Holy Fathers began to think more carefully by what means they might provide for their Flocks a remedy againfl thofe Torments, for thsm ejpecially who had not time enough to fulfil the Penance which the Canons enjoyned. Erafmus tell us of himfelf, that though he did certain- ly know and could prove, that Auricular Confeffion fuch as is in ufe in the Roman Church, were not of Divine in- ftitution : yet he would not fay fo, becaufe he conceived Confeffion a great reftraint from fin, and very profitable for the times he lived in, and therefore thought it expe- dient, that men mould rather by Error hold that necefla- ry and commanded, which was only profitable and advi- fed, than by believing, though truly the non-neceffity of it to neglect the ufe of that, as by experience we fee moft men do which was Co beneficial : If he thought fo of Confeffion, and yet thought it not fit to fpeak his mind, why might he not think the like of other points, and yet out of difcretion and Charity hold his peace? And why might not others of his time do fb as well as he: and if fo, how mail 1 be allured that in the Ages before him there were not other men alike minded, who though they knew and faw Errors and Corruptions in the Church, yet conceiving more»danger in the remedy, than harm in the difeafe, were contented hoc Cat one to let things alone as they were, left >by attempting to pluck the Ivy out of the Wall, they might pull down the Wall it felf, with which the Ivy was fo incorporated. Sir Edwm Sandys relates that in his Travels he met Q^z with 1 1 6 An Anfwer to Jcme TaJJages with divers men, whey, though they believed the Pope to be Antichnft, and his Church Antichnftian, yet thought themfelves not bound to feparate from the Communion of it : nay thought themfelves bound not to do fb : becaufe the True Church was to be the Seat of Antichrift, from the Communion whereof no man might divide himfelf upon any pretence whatsoever. And much to this purpofe is that which Charron tells us in his third Verite, cap. 4. £. 13. 15. That although all that which the Proteftants fay falfly of the Church of Rome, were true., yet for all this they muft not depart from it : and again. Though the Pope were Antichrift, and the Eftate of the Church, were fuch (that is as cor- rupt both in difcipline and Do&rine) as they (Proteftants) pretend, yet they muft not go out of it. Both thefe after- tions he proves at large in the above- cited Paragraphs, with very many and very plaufible reafbns : which I be- lieve would prove his intent, had not the corruptions of the Roman Church pollefled and infected even the pub- lick Service of God among them, in which their Com- munion was required : and did not the Church of Rome require the Belief of all her Errors, as the condition of her Communion. But howfbever be his reafbns conclu- five or not conclufive certainly this was the profeft opini- on of him, and divers others ; as by name Caffander and Baldwin, who though they thought as ill of the Do&rine of the moft prevailing part of the Church % of Rome ; as Proteftants do, yet thought it their duty not to feparate from her Communion. And if there were any confider- able number of confiderable men thus minded (as I know not why any man mould think there was not) then it is made not only a moft difficult, but even an impoffible thing to know what was the Catholick Judgment of our Fa- • rhers in the points of controverfie : leeing they might be joyned in Communion, and yet very far divided in opi- nion. They might all live in obedience to the Pope, and yet fbme think him head of the Church by Divine right : others fas a great part of the French Church at this day) by Ecclefiaftical conftitution ; others by neither, but by in Rufli worth's Dialogues. 1 17 by Practice and Ufurpation, wherein yet becaufe he had Prefcnption of many Ages for him he might noc juftly be difturbed. All might go to Confeffion and yet fomeonly think it neceflary ; others only profitable. All might go to Mafs and the other Services of the (Church, and fome only like and approve the Language of ic : others only tolerate it and wilh it altered if it might be, without greater incon- venience. All might receive the Sacrament, and yet fome believe it to be the Body and Blood of Chrift, others on- ly a Sacrament of it. Some that the Mais was a true and proper Sacrifice, others only a Commemorative Sacri- fice, or the Commemoration of a Sacrifice. Some that it was lawful for the Clergy to deny the Laiety the Sacramental Cup : others that it was lawful for them to receive in one kind only, feeing they could not in both. Some might adore Chrift as prefent there according to his Humanity, others as prefent according to his Divine Nature only. Some might pray for the Dead as believing them in Purgatory : others upon no certain ground, but only that they mould rather have their Prayers and Chari- ty which wanted them not, than that they which did want them mould not have them. Some might pray to Saints upon a belief that they heard their Prayers and knew their Hearts ; others might pray to them meaning nothing but to pray by them, that God for their fakes would grant their Prayers : others thirdly, might not pray to them at all, as thinking it unneceffary, others as fearing it unlaw- ful, yet becaufe they were not fully refolved, only forbear- ing it themlelves, and not condemning it in others. Uncle. I pray you then remember alio what it is that Proteftants do commonly taunt and check Catholkks with, is it not that they believe Traditions ? It is a meer Calumny that Proteftants condemn all kind of Traditions, who fublcribe very willingly to that of Vincentius Lerinenfis. That Christian Religion is res tradita non invent a, a matter of Tradition not ot mans in- vention, is, what the Church received from the Apoftles, (and by confequence what the Apoftles delivered to the Church; 1 1 8 An Anfwer to fome Vajfages Church) and the Apoftles from Chrift, and Chrift from God. Chemnitim in his Examen of the Council of Trent hath liberally granted {qvqxi forts of Traditions, and Pro- teftants find no fault with him for it. Prove therefore any Tradition to be Apoftolick, which is not written. Shew that there is fome known Word of God which we are commanded to believe, that is not contained in the Books of the Old and New Teftament, and we fhall quickly (hew that we believe Gods Word becaufe it is Gods, and not becaufe it is written. If there were any thing not written which had come down to us with as full and Univerfal a Tradition as the unqueftioned Books of .Canonical Scripture, That thing fhould I believe as well as the Scripture : but I have long fought for fome fuch thing, and yet I am to feek : Nay I am confident no one point in Controverfie between Papiilsand Protectants can go in upon half fo fair Cards, ' for to gain the efteem of an Apoftolick Tradition, as thofe things which are now decried on all hands, I mean the opinion of the Chihafis^ and the Communicating Infants. The latter by the confef- fion of Cardinal Ferron, Maldcnate, and Binius was the Cuftom of the Church for 600 years at leaft : It is expre£ ly and in terms vouched by S. Aufiin for the Do&rine of the Church and an Apoftolick Tradition : it was never inftituted by General Council, but in the ufe of the Church, as long before the Firft . general Council as S. Cyprian before the Council. There is no known Au- thor of the beginning of it : all which are the Catholick marks of an Apoftolick Tradition, and yet this you fay is not fb, or if it be, why have you abolifht'k ? The for- mer Lineally derives its pedigree from our Saviour to St. John : from S. John to Tafias : from Papias to Jufiin Martyr 3 Irenxus, Me lit 0 Sardenjis, Tertullian and others of the two firft Ages ': who as they generally agree in the Affirmati- on of this Doctrine, and are not contradi&ed by any of their Predeceflors : fb fome of them at leaft, fpeakto the point not as Doctors but Witnefles, and deliver it for the Do&nne of the Church and Apoftolick Tradition, and condemn the contrary as Herefie. And therefore if there tn Ruin worth s Dialogues, 1 1 9 there be any unwritten Traditions, thefe certainly muft be admitted firft : or if thsfe which have (b fair pretence to it muft yet be rejected : I hope then we mall have the like liberty to put back Purgatory, and Indulgences, andTran- fubftantiation, and the Latin Service, and the Commu- nion in one kind, &c none of which is of Age enough to be Page to either of the forenamed Do&rines, efpecial- ly the opinion of the Millenaries. Uncle. What think you means this word Tradition? No other thing certainly but that we confute all our Adver- saries by the Teftimony of the former Church ; laying unto them, this was the belief of our Fathers ; Thus were we taught by them and they by theirs, without ftop or ft ay till you come to Chrift. Wc confute our Adversaries by faying thus Truly a very eafie confutation : But faying and proving are two Mens Offices; and therefore though you be excellent in the former, I fear when it comes to the Tryal, you will be found defective in the Latter. Uncle. And this no other but the Roman Church did or could ever pretend to, which being in truth unde- niable, and they cannot choofe but grant the thing; Their laft refjge is to laugh, and lay that both Fathers and Councils did Err becaufe they were men, as if Proteftants themfelves were more. Is it not lb as I tell you ? No indeed, it is not by your leave, good Uncle. For firft the Greek Church as every body knows, pretends to perpe- tual fiicceflion of Doctrine, and undertakes to derive it from Chrift and his Apofttes, as confidently as we do ours : Neither is there any word in all this difcourfe, but might have been urged as fairly and as probably for the Greek Church as for the Roman : and therefore feeing your Arguments fight for both alike, they muft either con- clude for both, which is a dired impoffibility, for then Contradictions mould be both true : or elfe which is moft certain they conclude for neither and are not Demon- ftrations as you pretend, (for never any Demonftration could prove .both parts of a Contradiction) but meer So- phifms 1 1 9 ^tf Anjiver to Jotne Fajjages phifms and Captions, as the progrefs of our anfvver ftiall juftifie. Secondly, It is Co far from Proteftants to grant the thing you fpeak of, To wit, that the controverted Do&rines of the Roman Church came from Apoftolick Tradition, that they verily believe fhould the Apoftles now live again, they would hardly be able to find amongft you the Do&rin which they taught by reafbn of abundance of trafh and rubbifh which you have laid upon it. And laftly, They pretend not that Fathers and Coun- cils may err and they cannot, nor that they were men and themfelves are not ; but that you do moffc unjuftly and vainly to father your inventions of Yefterday upon the Fathers and Councils. Nephew. I know that we Catholicks do reverence Tra- ditions as much as Scripture it felf: neither do I fee why we ihould be blamed for it ; for the words which Chrift and his Apoftles (pake, rauft needs be as infallible as thofe which were written. True. But ftill the queftion depends, whether Chrift and his Apoftles did indeed fpeak thofe words which you • pretend they did: we fay with Irenam: Praconiavemnt frimum, Jcripferunt poftea. What they preacht firft, that they wrote afterwards: we fay with Tertullian — (Ecclefi- as) Apoftoli condiderunt, ipfi eis prrfdicando, tarn viva quod aiunt voce, quam per Epiftolas poftea.— The Apoftles found- ed the Churches by their Preaching to them : firft by word of mouth, then after by their writings. If you can prove the contrary do fo and we yield : but hitherto you do nothing. Nepheiv. And as for the keeping of it, I fee the Scri- pture it felf is beholden to Tradition (Gods providence pre- liippofed) for the integrity both of the letter, and the fenfe. Of the letter it is confeft : of the fenfe manifeft. For the fenfe being a diftind thing from the naked letter, and rather fetcht out by force of confequence, than in exprefs and formal terms contained, (which is moll true whether we fpeak of Froteftant fenfe or the Catholick) it belongeth rather to Tradition than exprefs Text of Scripture. That in Rufti worth's Dialogues. 1 2 r That which you defire to conclude is, That we muft be beholden to Tradition for the fenfe of Scripture : and your reafon to conclude this is, becaufe the fenfe is fetcht out by force of confequence : This of fbme places of Scri- pture is not true, efpecially thofe which belong to faith and good manners, which carry their meaning in their foreheads. Of others it is true, but nothing to the purpofe in hand, but rather dire&ly againft it. For Who will not fay, If I colled the fenfe of Scripture by Reafbn, then I have it not from Authority : that is unlefs I am miftaken. If I fetch it out by force of Confequence, then lam not beholden to Tradition for it. But the letter of Scripture has been preferved by Tradition, and therefore why mould we not receive other things upon Tradition as well as Scripture ? I anfwer. The Jews Tradition prefer- ved the books of the Old Teftament, and why then doth our Saviour receive thefe upon their Tradition., and yet condemn other things which they fuggefted as matters of Tradition ? If you fay it was becaufe thefe Tra- ditions came not from Mofes as they were pretended ; I fay alfo that yours are only pretended and not proved to come from the Apoftles. Prove your Tradition of thefe Additions as well as you prove the Tradition of Scripture, and aflureyour felves, we then according to the injun&ion of the Council of Trent (hall receive both with equal reve- rence. Nephew. As it may appear by the fenfe of thefe few words. Hoc eft corpus meum> whether you take the Protc- ftant or the Catholick fenfe : For the fame Text cannot have two contrary fenfes of it felf, but as they are fetcht out by force of Argument ; and therefore what fenfe hath belt Tradition to mew for it felf that's the Truth. This is neither Proteftant nor Catholick fenfe, but if we may fpeak the truth direA nonfenfe. For what if the fame Text cannot have contrary fenfes : is there therefore no means but Tradition to determin which is the true fenfe ? What connexion or what relation is there between this Antecedent and this Confequent ? certainly they are R meer in An An fiver to fonte PaJJages meer ftrangers to one another, and until they met by chance in this argument, never faw each other before. He that can find a third propofition to joyn them together in a good fyllogifin, I profefs unto you, Erit mihi mag- ruts Appotto. But what if of thefe two contrary fenfes the one, that is the Literal, draw after it a long tram of ab- furdities; The other, that is the Figurative do not fo? Have we not tea (on enough without advifing with Tradi- tion about the matter, to reject the Literal fenfe and em- brace the Spiritual ? S. Auftin certainly thought we had. For he gives us this diredion in his Book de Doctrind Chri- fiiand ; and the firft and fitteft Text that he could choofe to exemplifie his Rule, what think you is it? even the Coufin-German to that which you have made choice of. Unlepyou eat tbeflejh of the Son of Man, &c. Here faith he, the Letter ftems to command impiety. Figura eft ergo. Therefore it is a Figure commanding to feed devoutly, up- on the Paflion of our Lord, and to lay up in our memory that Chrift was crucified for us. Uncle. Thefe particulars peradventure would require a further difeutlion, and now I will take nothing but what is undeniable. As this is, to wit, That what points are in Controverfie betwixt us and Proteftants, we believe to have been delivered by Chrift and his Apoftles to our fore- fathers, and by them delivered from hand to hand to our Fathers, whom we know to have delivered them for fuch to us, and to have received and believed them for fiich themfelves. Certainly though Ink and Paper cannot blufh, yet T dare fay you were fain to rub your forehead over and over before you committed this to Writing. Say what you lift, for my part I am (b far from believing you, that I verily believe you do not believe your felves, when you pretend that you believe thofe points of your Dodrin which are in controverfie, to have been delivered to your Forefathers by Chrift and his Apoftles. Is it poffible that any fbber man who has read the New Teftament, mould believe that Chrift and his Apoftles taught Chnftians, That it was in Rufhworth's Dialogues. was fit and lawful to deny the Laity the Sacramental Cup: That it wa's expedient and for the edification of the Church, that the Scripture fhould be read, and the publick worfhip of God perpetually celebrated in a language which they underftand not, and to which for want of under- Handing, funlefs S. Paul deceive us) they cannot fay Amen: Or is it reafbnable you fhould dehre us to believe you, when your own Men, your own Champions, your o\vn Councils confefs the contrary? Does not the Council of Confiance acknowledg plainly, That the cuftom which they ratified, was contrary to Chrifts inftitution, and the cuftom of the Primitive Church ? and how then was it taught by Chrift and his Apoftles? Do not Cajetan and Lyranus confefs ingenuoufly, that it follows evidently from S. Paul, that it is more for edifi- cation, that the Liturgy of the Church fhould be in fuch a Language as the Affiftants underftand? The like Confeflion we have from others concerning Purgatory and Indulgences. Others acknowledges the Apoftles never taught Invoca- tion of Saints. Rhenanus fays as much touching Auricular Confeflion. It is evident from Peter Lombard that the Dodrin of Tranfubftantiation was not a point of Faith in his time. From Pirn Mir andula that the Infallibility of the Church was no Article, much lefs a foundation of Faith in his time. BeUarmine acknowledges that the Saints enjoying the Vilion of God before the day of judgment was no Article of Faith in the time of Pope John the XXII. But as the Proverb is, when Thieves fall out, true men re- cover their goods : fo how fmall and heartlefs, the reve- rence of the Church of Rome is to ancient Tradition, can- not be more plainly difcovered, than by the Quarrels which her Champions have amongft themfelves, efpeci- ally about the Immaculate conception of the Biefled Vir- gin. R z The i*? ii4 * In part pri- mum q. i. Art. 8. Dub. 5. fDifp. 51. in Ep. ad Rom. ITLto.VH.loc. cap. 1. cap. 3. n-9- * Omnium ex> preffe primus Chriftiferam virginem ori- ginalis nox* fe.< ^L^^SSSf -