Full and Easy Satisfaction — Richard Baxter

Full and Easy Satisfaction · Richard Baxter

PART. I. What is the Proteſtants Religion, and what the Papiſts.

CHAP. I. The occaſion of the Conference.

SIR, I am come to crave your help in a matter of great importance to me: I was bred a Proteſtant; but the Diſcourſes of ſome Roman Catholicks, have brought me into great doubts, whether I have not been all this while deceived: And though I cannot diſpute the caſe my ſelf with you, I deſire you to diſpute it in my hearing with a Catholick Prieſt whom I ſhall bring to you.

With all my heart: But let me firſt ask you a few Queſtions.

Queſt. 1. Did you ever underſtand what the Proteſtants Religion is?

I take it to be the 39 Articles, Liturgie and Government of the Church of England.

No wonder if you be eaſily drawn to doubt of that Religion which you no better underſtand. Can you hold it, and not know what it is?

Queſt. 2. Do you know what it is to be a Chriſtian?

It is to believe in Chriſt, and to Love and obey Him. Our Baptiſm is our Chriſtening.

Very true: And in your Baptiſm you are Dedicated and Vowed to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, renouncing the Luſts of the Fleſh, the World and the Devil.

Queſt. 3. And have you been a true Chriſtian, and lived according to this Vow? Have you obeyed God more than the deſires of your fleſh? Have you preferred the Kingdom of Heaven before all the pleaſures, honours and riches of this world? Have you ſincerely ſubmitted to the healing ſaving Doctrine, Law and example of Chriſt, and to the ſanctifying motions of his Holy Spirit? And have you lived ſoberly, righteouſly, and Godlily in the world, and made it your care and buſineſs to deny your ſelf, and mortifie all fleſhly inordinate deſires, as it is the care of ſenſual men to gratifie them?

I have had my faults as all men have; but I hope none can ſay but I have lived honeſtly towards all; And if I have been faulty in drinking, ſports or gaming, it hath been to no ones injury but my own.

I ask you not whether you are a ſinner; For ſo are all men. But whether you are a truly Penitent, Johnſ. Nov. Repr. p. 426. Proteſtants formally ſuch, have not enough to be brought to the unfeigned Love of God above all things, and ſpecial Love to his ſervants, and unfeigned willingneſs to obey him: I deny you have any certain knowledge or feeling that you love God or his ſervants, or willingneſs to obey, &c.Converted ſinner; and whether yet you are true to your Baptiſmal Vow and Covenant? Can your Conſcience ſay, that you Love, and Truſt and obey God, and your Redeemer, before all the world; and that you love not Pleaſure, Riches and Honour, more than God and Holineſs and Heaven? and that it is more of the care and buſineſs of your life, to Know and Love and ſerve God better, and to make ſure of your ſalvation, than to pleaſe your fleſh, or proſper in the world? In a word; Do you heartily and in your practice, take God for your God, even for your All, and Chriſt, for your Teacher, King and Saviour, and the Holy Ghoſt for your Sanctifier, turning in heart and life, from the Devil, the world, and the ſinful pleaſures of the fleſh? This is the queſtion which I deſire you to anſwer.

But I will prevent your anſwer leſt you miſtake my purpoſe, and think I make my ſelf your Confeſſour, and I will tell you why I ask the queſtion.

Either you have thus Kept your Baptiſmal Vow, by a Godly life, or elſe you have broken it by worldlineſs and ſenſuality, &c. If you have kept it, and are a truly Godly perſon, you have reſolved your own doubt, and abſolutely confuted Popery already. For no honeſt man and true Chriſtian can poſſibly turn Papiſt without groſs contradiction.

How prove you that.

Moſt eaſily: I pray you do but mark: 1. It is their principal Doctrine that the Pope is the Head of the Univerſal Church on earth; and that the Church ſubjected to him, is the Univerſal Church; and that out of that Church there is no ſalvation; and that no one is a true member of Chriſt and his Church, who is not a ſubject of the Pope.

2. And they all confeſs that every one ſhall be ſaved that is a true Chriſtian, and keepeth his Baptiſmal Covenant, and that Loveth God above all. So that they muſt needs hold that none in the world but Papiſts, do truly Love God, & keep that Covenant, and are true Chriſtians.

Now if you can know that you have the true Love of God, and are true to your Baptiſm, you muſt needs confeſs that Popery is falſe, which ſaith that none Love God above all but Papiſts.

But what if I have not Loved God, and obeyed him, above my fleſh?

I'le tell you what followeth. 1. It is no wonder if you forſake the Proteſtants Religion, who never truly entertained it. If your Heart and Life were not devoted unfeignedly to God, you were no true Chriſtian, nor indeed had any true Religion at all: And he that hath no Religion, turneth from none which he truly had. If you were never a true Chriſtian, you were never a true Proteſtant: And then what wonder if you turn Papiſt? For you have no experimental Knowledge of that Religion which you ſeem to forſake.

2. And how could you expect better, but that God ſhould penally forſake you, and give you over to believe deceits, if you have dealt ſo falſly and deceitfully with him, as to live to the world and fleſh which you renounced, and neglect that God and Saviour and ſanctifier to whom you were ſo ſolemnly devoted? And if you have been ſo treacherous and unwiſe, as to prefer a bruitiſh tranſitory pleaſure, before Gods Love and the Joyes of Heaven?

3. And what honour is it to the Church of Rome, that none but Infidels and falſe-hearted hypocrites, and perfidious breakers of their Covenant with God, did ever turn to them? If you turn Papiſt, you confeſs that you were a wicked hypocrite before.

4. But the chief thing which I would tell you is, that turn up and down as oft as you will, to this Church or that Church, to this ſide or that ſide, you will never be ſaved, unleſs you become a holy, ſerious, mortified Chriſtian: As long as you love pleaſures, wealth and honour more than God and Holineſs and Heaven, you ſhall never be ſaved, whether you be Papiſt, or a profeſſed Proteſtant. It would make the heart of a Chriſtian ake, to ſee ſo many thouſands cheated by the Devil, to take this opinion or that opinion, called the true faith, and this ſide or that ſide, called the true Church, to be to them inſtead of a holy heavenly heart and life. And how many thouſands, eſpecially Papiſts, that are truly of no Religion, do diſpute, and plot and diſquiet the world, as for Religion. To hear a prophane man ſwear that his Religion is right; or that man to think to be ſaved for being of the true Church and faith, whoſe heart was never ſet on Heaven, but liveth in drunkenneſs, lying, idleneſs, fornication, and thinketh that the Prieſts abſolution ſets all right again. Without true Holineſs no man ſhall be ſaved, what Church ſoever he joyn with; and with it no man ſhall be damned. For God cannot hate them that have his nature, and Image.

Well ſir: I came not to diſpute with you, but to deſire you to meet a Roman Catholick Prieſt, that I may hear you both together.

I have the greater hopes of you, becauſe you have ſo much regard of your ſoul, as to be willing to hear what can be ſaid. For moſt that turn to them, never come to an impartial tryal, but raſhly follow the deceiver, or ſtay till they are ſecretly hardened by falſe inſinuations, and then take on them to deſire to hear both, when they are firſt reſolved to be gone.

But you muſt tell me what is the queſtion that you deſire ſhould be diſputed.

I would know whether the Papiſts or the Proteſtants be the True, and ſafe Religion?

I undertake to give you that plain undenyable evidence for your reſolution, which ſhould fully ſatisfie any reaſonable man, at leaſt that profeſſeth himſelf a Chriſtian: ſo be it you will perform theſe reaſonable conditions: 1. That you will be impartially willing to know the truth. 2. That you will honeſtly reſolve to Live according to it when you know it, and to be True to the True Religion. 3. That you will bring ſuch a man to confer with me, who will yield to the Reaſonable Conditions of a diſputant, ſuch as your Doubt and the nature of the matter doth notoriouſly require, and not a Knave, and ſtudied Deceiver, who will ſet himſelf purpoſely to hide the truth.

Theſe conditions are ſo reaſonable that I muſt not deny them.

CHAP. II. The Conditions of the Conference; between a P. and R. and D.

SIR, I am deſired by this perſon, who is brought by ſome of you to doubt of our Religion, to debate this Caſe with you in order to his ſatisfaction, Whether the Papiſts or the Proteſtants be the True and Safe Religion?

That is too large a Queſtion: We cannot diſpute of all our Religion at once: I will begin with you, about ſome one of the Articles of the Church of England, or the Viſibility of your Church in all Ages, or the Reſolution of your faith, &c. And this I will do only on theſe conditions, 1. That you bring ſome expreſs Text of Scripture, which without your Interpretation, Reaſonings or Conſequences, doth aſſert that Article of yours which I ſhall accuſe, or contradict any Article of our faith, which ſhall be queſtioned. 2. Or if you will go from the expreſs words to Reaſoning, that we keep to the ſtricteſt Rules of Logick, and that you uſe nothing but Syllogiſm, and that all be done in writing, and not by word of mouth.

Neighbour D. you promiſed me to bring another kind of Diſputant: You hear his conditions: you ſhall hear my anſwer.

1. The Caſe which you told me you were in doubt of, and deſired ſatisfaction in, was Which is the True and Safe Religion? This he refuſeth to Diſpute. Pretending that we cannot diſpute of our whole Religion at once. But did you never hear him give any Reaſons againſt our Religion? If he have, Why can he not do it now? I expect not all in a word, but let him give them one by one, and ſay his worſt. I am ſure I can give you many againſt theirs: And we will after debate them particularly as largely as you pleaſe.

2. If Writing be it that you deſire for your ſatisfaction, I ask you, whether you have read all, or the fourth part, of what is written againſt Popery already. Have you read Dr. Challoner of the Catholick Church? Dr. White, Dr. Field, Dr. Downame of Antichriſt, Chillingworth, Dr. Abbot, Dr. Willet, Biſhop Ʋſher, Biſhop Morton, Dr. Stillingfleet, and an hundred more? Why ſhould I expect that you ſhould read what I ſhall write, if you will not read what's written already?

3. Can you ſtay ſo long unreſolved without injury to your ſoul, till he and I have done writing? You cannot but know, that from Sheets we muſt proceed to the writing of Volumes, in anſwering each other, as others have done. And this is like to be many years work, for men that have other buſineſs: And how know you that we ſhall all Live ſo long?

4. Are you able when it cometh to tedious Volumes to examine them, and find who is in the right? Or will you not rather take him to conquer, who hath the laſt word? And it's like that will be the longeſt liver?

5. And as to a ſtrict ſyllogiſtical form, do you underſtand that beſt? I avoid it not, but ſhall conſent to uſe it as far as you underſtand it. Do you know all the Logical forms of arguing, all Moods and Figures, and all the fallacies? Or do you not perceive, that you have broken your promiſe with me, and brought a friend of darkneſs, who cometh purpoſely to hide the truth?

I muſt needs profeſs, that the Queſtion which I would have debated, is, Which is the True and Safe Religion? And that it is not tedious writings, nor long delayes, but preſent conference which muſt ſatisfie me. And that it is plain Scripture and Reaſon that muſt ſatisfie me, who underſtand not Logick. I pray let me hear your own Conditions which you think more juſt.

The Conditions which the nature of the Cauſe directeth us to, are theſe.

I. That we firſt truly ſtate the queſtion to be diſputed: For we cannot diſpute till we are agreed of what: That is, 1. That we agree what we mean by our [Religion]; and 2. That I tell you, what is the Religion of Proteſtants, which I undertake to defend: And that he tell us what is the Religion of the Romaniſts, which muſt be compared with it.

II. That our Conference conſiſt of theſe ſeveral parts.

1. That premiſing the principles in which we are agreed, I tell you the Reaſons why you ſhould not be a Papiſt.

2. That he tell you the Reaſons why you ſhould turn Papiſt, or what he hath againſt Our Religion.

3. That then we come to diſpute theſe Reaſons diſtinctly: where I will prove my charges againſt them, and he ſhall prove his charges againſt us one by one.

III. And that in all our diſputes, we ſhall conſent, 1. Not to interrupt each other in ſpeech; but if the length ſeem to overmatch the hearers memory, we will take brief Notes to help our memories, as we go, and crave the recitation of what ſhall be forgotten: For the ſtrength of Truth lyeth ſo much in the connexion of its parts, that when it is mangled into ſcraps by uncivil interruptions, it is deformed and debilitated and cannot be well underſtood.

2. That we bind our ſelves by ſolemn promiſe, to ſpeak nothing which we unfeignedly judge not to be truth, nor any thing deſignedly to hide or reſiſt the truth which we diſcern.

Theſe terms are ſo juſt and neceſſary, that I will avoid him as a fraudulent wrangler who will deny them. For I come not to ſcold, nor to try who hath the ſtrongeſt Lungs, the nimbleſt Tongue, or the lowdeſt voice, or the greateſt confidence, or fierceſt paſſion; but to try who hath the truth, and which is the true way to Heaven. For the ſervant of the Lord muſt not ſtrive; eſpecially about words and barren notions; for that doth but tend to increaſe ungodlineſs.

Your Method is ſo reaſonable, and ſo ſuited to my own neceſſity, that I muſt profeſs no other can ſo much tend to my ſatisfaction: And therefore I hope it will not be refuſed.

(Here after long oppoſition, the P. at laſt agreeth to theſe terms).

CHAP. III. What is the Religion of the Proteſtants.

I. THe word [Religion] is ſometimes taken Objectively; And ſo I mean by it▪ [The objects of Religious Belief, Love and Practice,] which are, 1. The Things themſelves; which are the principal objects (called by Logicians, The Incomplex terms.) 2. The organical object; or the Revelation of theſe Things; containing 1. The Words or other. Signs: 2. The ſenſe or notions ſignified.

For inſtance, Matth. 17.5. [This is my Beloved ſon in whom I am well pleaſed.] Here 1. The Real Incomplex object is Chriſt Himſelf, the beloved Son of God, and God the Fathers well-pleaſedneſs in him. 2. The ſignal part of the organical object, or Revelation, is the Words themſelves, as ſpoken then, and written now. 3. The ſignified notions are the Meaning of the words, and are the chief part of the organical object, that is the Divine Revelation.

The word [Religion] is of larger extent in its ſenſe than [Faith]; For it containeth all that Revelation which God hath made Neceſſary to ſalvation; which is twofold, 1. That which is to inform the underſtanding with neceſſary knowledge and faith. 2. That which is neceſſary to a Holy Will and a Holy Life, to the Love of God and man, and to well doing; which are Precepts, Promiſes and Threatnings.

II. The word [Religion] is oft taken alſo ſubjectively (as they ſpeak); For the Acts and habits of Love and Obedience.

Now I ſuppoſe we are agreed that it is not Religion in this laſt ſenſe that we are to diſpute of (which is as divers as perſons are:) But it is that which we call Objective Religion, even the Organical part directly. And if by all this D. underſtandeth us not, in plainer words, our Queſtion is, Of the True Divine Revelation, viz. Which is the True Rule of Faith, Will and Practice; that which is held to be ſuch by the Proteſtants: or that which is held to be ſuch by the Papiſts?

I grant you, that this is the ſtate of the Queſtion.

I here declare to you then, What is the Religion of the Proteſtants. IT IS THE LIGHT and LAW OF GOD CONCERNING HOLY KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF, HOLY WILL and PRACTICE, CONTAINED IN NATURE and THE TRUE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES.

Here note 1. That our Religion hath its Eſſential parts; And its Integral parts and Accidentals. I. The Eſſentials of our Religion, are contained in the Baptiſmal Covenant; which is expounded in the CREED, the LORDS PRAYER, and the DECALOGUE (as delivered and expounded by Chriſt, and the Law of Nature.)

II. Our Entire Religion, in the Eſſentials, Integrals and needful Accidentals is contained wholly in the Law of Nature and the Canonical Scriptures.

The Eſſentials are delivered down to us two wayes: 1. In Scripture with the reſt; 2. By the ſure tradition of the Ʋniverſality of Chriſtians, in actual Baptizings, and the daily profeſſion of Chriſtianity. This is all the Proteſtants Religion. If you faſten any other on us, we deny it; we own no other. And none know What is my Religion, that is, What I take for the Rule of my holy Faith, Love and Life, ſo well as my ſelf.

This is meer craft: you will make that only which is paſt controverſie among us, to be Your Religion, that ſo your Religion may be paſt controverſie too.

It is ſuch Craft as containeth that naked truth, which we truſt all our own ſalvation on. I ſay that I have no other Religion; And if you know better than I, diſprove me.

I diſprove you three wayes. I. Becauſe the Name Proteſtant ſignifieth no ſuch Religion, but ſomewhat elſe lately taken up. II. Becauſe the Anguſtane Confeſſion, the thirty nine Articles and ſuch like, are by your ſelves called The Articles of your Religion. III. Becauſe all your Writings declare, that beſides theſe, you hold all thoſe controverted points, which are contrary to that which you call Popery.

I pray you mark D. that he would perſwade you that he knoweth my Religion better than I do my ſelf? What if I ſhould pretend the like as to his Religion? Were I to be believed?

No: but if you have an odd Religion of your own, that proveth it not to be the Proteſtant Religion.

Remember D. that I come not hither to perſwade you to any other Religion, than this which I have mentioned. Let him talk as long as he will what is other mens opinions, I perſwade you to nothing but this, to take Gods Law of Nature and the Scripture for your Religion. Either this is Right or Wrong. If Right, fix here and I have done. If Wrong, let that be diſputed.

But yet I open to you all his three deceits.

I. The name Proteſtant doth not ſignifie our Religion, but our Proteſting againſt the Papiſts corruptions and additions. I have no Religion but Chriſtianity: Knot againſt Chillingworth Ch. 2. p. 122. [In no one doctrine Proteſtants would ſeem more unanimouſly to agree, than in this, That all things neceſſary to ſalvation are contained evidently in Scripture— which they hold as the only foundation of the whole ſtructure of their Faith and Religion.] Note this Confeſſion.I am a Chriſtian, and that ſignifieth all my Religion. I am a Catholick Chriſtian, that is, of the Common Chriſtian Faith and Church, and not of any heretical dividing Sect: And I am a Reformed Proteſtant Chriſtian, becauſe I renounce Popery. Therefore I rather ſay [The Proteſtants] than the [Proteſtant] Religion. As if I were among Lepers; If I ſay, I am no Leper, that ſignifieth not my Eſſence: But if I ſay, [I am a Man, and I am not a Leper,] I ſpeak my Nature, and my freedom from that diſeaſe. So if I ſay I am a Chriſtian Proteſtant, I mean only that I am a Chriſtian, and no Papiſt, or renouncing Popery; as by the word [Catholick] I renounce all Sects and Schiſms. I tell you, This is my meaning, when I ſay, I am a Proteſtant: and can you tell my meaning better than my ſelf?

II. And as to what he ſaith of the thirty nine Articles and other Church Confeſſions, I anſwer, None of theſe are our Religion, in the ſenſe now in queſtion; that is, They are not taken by us to be [the Divine Revealed-Rule of our Faith, Love and Life] which is our Religion now diſputed of. And that this is ſo, I prove to you paſt all queſtion.

For 1. Elſe ſhould we have as many Religions as we have Church Confeſſions, and ſhould alter our Religion as oft as we alter our Confeſſions; and our Religion ſhould be as New as thoſe Confeſſions: All which the Proteſtants abhor.

2. All thoſe very Confeſſions themſelves do aſſert that Gods Word is our only Religion, and all mens Writings and Decrees are lyable to miſtakes: To paſs by all the reſt, theſe are the words of our ſixth Article, [Holy Scripture containeth all things Neceſſary to ſalvation: ſo that whatſoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it ſhould be believed as an Article of faith, or be thought Requiſite or neceſſary to ſalvation]. What would you have more plain and full?

And in the Book of Ordination, it is askt [Are you perſwaded that the Holy Scriptures contain ſufficiently all doctrine required of neceſſity for eternal ſalvation? through faith in Jeſus Chriſt? And are you determined out of the ſaid Scriptures to inſtruct the people committed to your charge? and to teach Nothing (as required of neceſſity to eternal ſalvation) but that which you ſhall be perſwaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?] Is not this plain?

Why then do you call the thirty nine Articles the Articles of your Religion? And what is their uſe? And why are all required to ſubſcribe them?

1. Their Uſe is to ſignifie how the Conjunct Paſtors who uſe them do underſtand the Holy Scriptures in thoſe points: And that partly for the ſatisfaction of all forreign Churches, who may hear us accuſed of Hereſie or Error; and partly to be a hedge to the Doctrine of young Preachers, to keep them from vending miſtakes in the Churches, and alſo to try the ſoundneſs of their underſtandings.

2. The Confeſſions, and Articles, and Catechiſms are our Religion, as the Writings of Perron, Bellarmine, Suarez, &c. or many of theſe agreeing, are the Roman Religion: They are not the Divine Revelation and Rule of faith and practice to us: But they are the expreſſion of our own conceptions of the ſenſe of ſeveral chief matters in that Rule or Revelation. So that they are the Expreſſion of our faith or Religion taken ſubjectively (for acts and habits) and not our objective Rule it ſelf. Our Sermons and Prayers are our Religion in this ſenſe: that is, The Expreſſion of our own Religious Conceptions: And ſo are your Sermons and your Writings alſo to you. But if this were our Rule of Faith and Life, and ſo our Divine Objective Religion, then we ſhould be of as many Religions, as we are ſeveral perſons: For every one hath his ſeveral Expreſſions: And every new Sermon, or Book, or Prayer, would be a new part of Religion. And ſo with you alſo. So that this doubt is paſt all doubt: Our Confeſſions are but the expreſſions of our perſonal belief, and not our Rule of Faith.

III. And as to your third pretence (that we have other Articles as oppoſite to Popery) I anſwer, Our Religion as a Rule of Faith and Worſhip is one thing ▪ And our Rejecting all Corruptions and Additions is another. E. g. My Religion is, that our God is only the true God. If now I ſay alſo, that Hercules is not God, and Bacchus is not God, and Venus, Mars, Mercury, Pallas, Neptune, Pluto, Ceres, &c. are not Gods; is this a new Religion, or an addition to the former? If the Baptiſmal Covenant be the Eſſentials of my Religion, and the Creed, Lords Prayer and Decalogue the Explication of it; and if the Scripture be my Entire Religion, and if the Papiſts will come and add a multitude of new Articles and Corruptions, my rejecting of thoſe additions, is no more an alteration of my Religion, than the ſweeping of my houſe, or the waſhing of my hands is an alteration of them. So that notwithſtanding all that you have ſaid, my Religion is nothing but the Law of Nature and Scripture, and my rejecting of Popery, is no otherwiſe my Religion, than my freedom from the Leproſie, &c. is my humanity.

Obſerve, I pray you, that It is no part of your Religion to be againſt Popery.

Obſerve I pray you, that Popery is againſt my Religion, that is, againſt much of the Chriſtian Religion; and therefore my Religion is againſt Popery. But I will not quarrell with you about words: When God hath Revealed to us his Will, and the Papiſts add their corrupting inventions, Gods Revealed Will is my Religion: your Corrupting additions are contrary to it: Call my rejecting ſuch Corruptions and additions, by the name of my Religion Reductively (as Nihil is objectum Intellectus, & Malum Voluntatis; and as non-agere is part of obedience); or Call it no part of my Religion in the primary notion, but a Rejecting of its contraries; ſo we underſtand each other I care not.

The truth is, the Rejecting of ſome of your errors, directly contradicting the Scripture it ſelf, may be called part of our Religion, as the Negation of the Contrary is included in the ſenſe of an Affirmative: But your remoter additions, are contrary to our Religion, but not ſo directly. For inſtance: when the Scripture ſaith, There is bread after Conſecration, and you ſay There is no bread: My Religion containeth the Aſſertion, that There is bread: And ſo includeth a contradiction to your Negative, that ſaith [There is none]. Now to ſay, that it is none of my Religion to deny your Negative, who ſay There is no bread, would import that It is none of my Religion which affirmeth that there is bread. Contradictions cannot both be true: Properly that word that ſaith There is bread is my Religion: But this word contradicteth you that ſay There is none.

But in another inſtance; my Religion ſaith, that The Righteous ſhall go into life everlaſting, and the reſt to everlaſting puniſhment; and tells us of a Heaven and Hell only hereafter: And you tell us of Limbus Patrum & Infantum, and of Purgatory: The Scripture enableth us by conſequence to confute this: but if it did not, it were enough for me to ſay, It is none of my Religion, becauſe not Revealed by God in Nature or Scripture; And as it is your Addition, ſo to deny it, is not directly and properly my Religion it ſelf, but the Defence and Ʋſe of my Religion. God tells us in Scripture, that He created Heaven and Earth. If one ſhould aſſert as from God, that God created ten thouſand Heavens and ten thouſand Earths, this is a faith of his own invention or addition, and it is enough for me to ſay, I have no ſuch faith; becauſe God revealeth no ſuch thing. So tha… ſtill the Scripture is the Proteſtants Religion as your Polydor Virgil truly deſcribeth them, and others confeſs.

All this is meer deluſion: For It is not the words, but the ſenſe that is your Religion; as you will confeſs. And if your Articles or Confeſſions contain a falſe ſenſe, or your Books or Sermons ſhew that you falſly expound the Scripture, your Religion is then falſe.

Such Confuſion may cheat a heedleſs hearer: But any one that will take heed, may quickly perceive, that you here fraudulently play with the ambiguity of the word [Religion] and quite turn to another queſtion. For you now ſpeak of ſubjective Religion, that is, of the Acts and habits of the perſon: whereas we are diſputing only of objective Religion, which is Gods Revelation and our Rule. If I underſtand any Texts of Scripture amiſs, my faith is ſo far defective in my ſelfs ▪ But Gods Word, which is my Rule, is never the more imperfect.

I pray you conſider how juſtly you have ſpoken. 1. Is a mans Act of faith, Gods Word or Revelation? 2. What need you diſpute of the Proteſtants Religion, if we have as many Religions as perſons? For it is as certain that we have as many degrees of our underſtanding many Texts of Scripture? 3. Would not this prove alſo as many Religions as perſons among your ſelves? Is it not moſt certain that no two Papiſts in the world, have juſt the ſame ſenſe or conceptions of the Scriptures and Councils in each particular. The Law of God is my only Religion, objectively, as how diſputed of: If I miſtake any eſſential part of it, ſo as to deny it, I am perſonally a Heretick: If I miſtake any Integral part, I ſo far err from the Rule of my Religion or faith. But I ſtill profeſs, that I take Gods Word or Law only for my ſure unchangeable Rule or objective Religion, and I am daily learning to underſtand it better, and as ſoon as I ſee my error I will reform it, and blame my ſelf and not my Rule. And I think you will ſay the ſame of your Rule and of your perſonal errors.

This ſhall not ſerve your turn: For every Law muſt have its promulgation: And if it be not manifeſted to you that Scripture is Gods Law, and ſufficient, it cannot be your Rule: I ask you therefore,

Qu. 1. Is it the Scripture in the Original, or in the Tranſlations, which you ſay is your Religion, Law or Rule?

I told you our Divine Rule conſiſteth of Words and Meaning. It is only the Originals which are our Rule or Religion as to the very words; that is, Only the Original words, were of that Divine Inſpiration. But every Tranſlation is ſo far Gods Word, in ſenſe, as it expreſſeth truly the ſenſe of the original words.

Qu. 2. I pray you what then is the Religion of all the unlearned Proteſtants, who know not a word of the Originals? They may ſee now that you have ſtript them of all Divine Religion.

Their Religion is the ſame objectively with that of the moſt learned, as delivered from God; but it is not equally learned and underſtood by them; Gods Word in the Original Tongues is given them as the Rule of Faith and Worſhip; and Teachers are appointed to help them to underſtand it. When theſe Teachers have Tranſlated it to them, they have the ſame ſenſe, though not the ſame words, for their Religion. And to know the Words is not ſo neceſſary to ſalvation, as to know the ſenſe (or ſentence) though by other words: For the words are but means to know the Senſe; and the ſenſe but a means to know the Things, (viz. God, Chriſt, Grace, Glory, &c.) And as they have the ſame God, Chriſt, Spirit, Grace, Glory, &c. to be the real objects of their Religion, ſo have they the ſame DoDoctrine and Law in ſenſe which is in the Originals.

Q. 3. And I pray you, How ſhall the unlearned be ſure that the Tranſlations are true as to the ſence? when you have no Divine Infallible Tranſlators?

I alſo ask you. 1. How was all the Greek Church for many hundred years ſure of the ſoundneſs of the Tranſlation called the Septuagint? or that of Aquila, Theodot. Symmachus, &c. when it is certain that in many things they were all unſound?

2. How was the Latine Church ſure of the ſoundneſs of their Tranſlation before Hierome amended it? And how have you been ſure ſince then, when Pope Sixtus, and Pope Clement have made ſo many hundred alterations or differences? Had you then Infallible Tranſlators? And why then do your Tranſlators (as Montanus and others) ſtill differ from that Vulgar Latine?

3. And how do all your unlearned perſons know that you give them not only the true ſence of the Scriptures, but of all your Councils or Traditions?

But I will anſwer you directly. We ſtill diſtinguiſh the Eſſentials of our Religion, from the Integrals and Accidentals. 1. The unlearned may be certain that the Eſſentials are truly delivered them in ſence: Becauſe they have them not only in the Scripture, but by Ʋniverſal certain Tradition, in the conſtant Ʋſe of Chriſtian Baptiſm, and in the uſe of the Creed, Lords Prayer and Decalogue in all the Church-aſſemblies: And they may eaſily know that mens tempers, Countreys, Intereſts, opinions in other points, and ſidings are ſo various, that it is not a thing poſſible without a miracle, that all theſe ſhould conſpire both in a falſe Tranſlation, and Ʋniverſal aſſertion and Tradition of all theſe Eſſentials. For the effects muſt be contrary to a torrent of Cauſes: The Papiſts, Proteſtants, Arians, Greeks, Socinians, Lutherans, Calviniſts, Anabaptiſts, Separatiſts, &c. have ſo much animoſity againſt each other, that undoubtedly if any party of them did falſifie Scripture even in the Eſſentials which are eaſily diſcerned, multitudes would quickly detect it and contradict them. And this the unlearned may ſurely and eaſily diſcern.

But as for all other leſs neceſſary texts of Scripture, neither you nor we, learned or unlearned, are certain that they are perfectly tranſlated, nor are they by any one perfectly underſtood, nor are they ſure (by reaſon of the various readings) which copie of the original is abſolutely faultleſs.

2. But ſuppoſe that an unlearned weak Believer were not abſolutely certain (as he may be) that the very eſſentials of Chriſtianity are truly opened to him, he may yet grow up to better underſtanding, and he may be ſaved with ſome doubtings of Chriſtianity it ſelf, ſo be it his Faith be more prevalent than thoſe doubtings, upon his Heart and Life.

Is it a ſafe Religion which you your ſelf deſcribe? When no man can be ſure that he rightly underſtandeth all the Scriptures? and when your believer is uncertain, even of Chriſtianity it ſelf? Let D. Judge whether this be a ſure Religion.

The word of God is abſolutely certain in it ſelf; but that ſo much uncertainty may be in believers, I will make you to your ſhame confeſs your ſelf, and recant theſe inſinuations.

Q. 1. Dare you ſay that all your Church, or any one man, even the Pope himſelf, doth underſtand all the Scripture? or can perfectly and infallibly tranſlate each word? You dare not ſay it. Elſe why did he never once pretend to give us either an unerring Commentary or Tranſlation? And why have you ſuch great diverſity of both?

Q. 2. How much leſs dare you ſay that any of you perfectly underſtand all the Councils, which are the reſt of your Religion? No nor that you have certainty which are the true Copies of them all? elſe why do Caranza, Crab; Surius, Binnius, Nicolinus, &c. give give us ſuch various Copies? And yet you confeſs the Scriptures to be Gods word, and with the Councils to contain your Religion.

Q. 3. If God have promiſed ſalvation, to all that truly hold and practiſe the Eſſentials (the Baptiſmal Covenant) doth the difficulty of other points (in Genealogie, Chronologie, Hiſtory, by matters) either make our ſalvation ever the leſs certain, or any way impeach the word of God? What diſgrace is it to a man that beſides Head and Heart, he hath fingers, and toes, and nails and hair? No more is it to the Scripture, that as our entire Religion, it containeth even Integrals and Accidentals.

Q. 4. And as to a Doubting Believer, I ask, Dare you ſay that all thoſe were Infidels or in a ſtate of damnation, who ſaid,See the Roman Catech. where this is confeſt, Cap. 1. q. 1. pag. 9. Lord increaſe our faith? or Lord we believe; help our unbelief? or to whom Chriſt ſaid, Why are ye afraid O ye of little faith? or that ſaid, Luk. 24. We truſted that this had been he that ſhould have delivered Iſrael? Or if a man ſhould doubt even of the Life to come, and yet his Faith be ſo much more powerful than his doubts, as that he reſolveth to prefer his hopes of Heaven before all this world, and to ſeek it on the moſt ſelf-denying terms, even to the laying down of life it ſelf, are you ſure that this man ſhall be damned? But this is the Courſe of pieviſh wranglers. To maintain their own opinions and put a face of certainty on their own concluſions, they ſtick not to damn almoſt all the world. For it will be no leſs, if all doubting believers muſt be damned.

5. It is a groſs deluſion to pretend that there is a neceſſity, that All Gods Infallible word, See Dr. Holden Analyſ. fidei Li. 1. c. 3. Lett. 1.muſt needs be taught us by as Infallible Inſpired Prophets or other perſons, as thoſe that firſt delivered it. Tranſlation is but the firſt part of expoſition. And muſt we have none but Infallible or Prophetical Expoſitors?

6. Is it All the Scriptures, or but ſome part, that your Pope or Councils can Infallibly both tranſlate and expound? If but ſome, we need not their Infallibility or Inſpiration, for the moſt plain and neceſſary parts: It is and can be done without them. If it be All, how impious and cruel are they that would never do it to this day?

7. And why uſe all your Expoſitors the common helps of Grammars, Lexicons, Teachers, long ſtudies, and yet differ de ſide (even of the ſenſe of many a text of Scripture) when all is done, if your Pope have the gift of Infallible Tranſlating and expounding all?

Remember that your ſelves derive your Eſſentials from Tradition.

Yes, and our Integrals to: What objective preſence to the ſenſes, (eyes and ears) of thoſe that heard Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and ſaw their miracles was to the firſt Converts in thoſe times, that partly Tradition is to us, or the neceſſary medium. He that would know what ſtreſs we lay on Tradition as the Medium may ſee it fully in my Reaſons of Chriſt. Relig. And Dr. Holden is more for us than for the Papiſts, Cap. 3.The words could not come down to us, without ſome to deliver them. We have the Bible by Tradition, and we have practical Tradition of Baptiſm and the Creed by it ſelf, and that in many languages; where we are ſure we have all the neceſſary ſence. But do you remember that this is Ʋniverſal Tradition, and not meer Roman Tradition; ſuch as is certain by moral Evidence, even the conſent of all that are yet of croſs opinions and Intereſts, (as to matter of fact); Hiſtorical Evidence; and not the pretended certainty of a Pope and his favourites, phanatically claiming a ſpirit of Infallibility.

But I am not now diſputing with you, I am only telling you that the Proteſtant Religion is nothing but Chriſtianity and the Scriptures. And all our Confeſſions are our Religion (beſides Conſent) but as our Sermons and Treatiſes are, which vary as they are various expreſſions of mens various ſubjective faith; while Gods word varyeth not.

If the Bible be your Religion, then the Ceremonial Law of Moſes is your Religion: For that is part of the Bible.

You ſtudy what to ſay againſt another, and never think how it concerneth your ſelves. 1. Is not the Bible at leaſt Part of your Religion? You dare not deny it. And is the Ceremonial Law of Moſes therefore your Religion?

2. I told you that as a perfect man hath hair and nails, which are but Accidents, ſo the Bible hath more than the Integrals of our Religion.

3. The Ceremonies of Moſes in that ſenſe as now they are delivered to us in the Bible, are parts or appurtenances of our Religion: That is, the hiſtorical narrative of thoſe Abrogated Laws, which now bind us not as Laws, but tell us (as the Propheſies) what was heretofore, and how Chriſt was fore-typified, and what intimations of Gods will we may gather from the hiſtory. And the abrogated Laws are no otherwiſe delivered to us, and ſo we muſt uſe them.

If the ten Commandments be your Religion, you muſt keep the Jewiſh ſeventh day Sabbath: ſo that neither there can you fix.

The ſame anſwer will ſerve. 1. The ten Commandments are no otherwiſe part of our Religion th…n they are of yours. 2. They are a Law to us, as delivered and expounded by Chriſt, and in Nature: and the ſeventh day is an abrogated part of Moſes Law.

If the Creed be your Religion, you muſt take the Article of Chriſts deſcent into Hell to be neceſſary to ſalvation.

1. Is the Creed no part of your Religion? As you anſwer, ſo may we. 2. I did not tell you that the Creed had no more than the Eſſentials. I told you that all the Eſſence of Chriſtianity is in the Baptiſmal Covenant: And he that underſtandeth that, underſtandeth it all. And that the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the Chriſtian Decalogue are the expoſition of it. But the Expoſition may have ſomewhat more than the Eſſentials. 3. The Creed was not written firſt in Engliſh, nor Latine; And Chriſts deſcent to Hades is more needful to be believed, than his deſcent to Hell, as the word is commonly taken in Engliſh.

But, to conclude, remember, 1. That I profeſs here to own and plead for no other Religion (as we explained the word) but Gods Law of Nature and Scripture. 2. That I profeſs to perſwade D. to no other: And you cannot make me a Religion againſt my will.

CHAP. IV. What is the Papiſts Religion.

I Have plainly told you what my own, and the Proteſtants Religion is, viz. [Nothing but Chriſtianity; contained Integrally in the holy Scriptures; And the Eſſentials being the Baptiſmal Covenant, explained in the Creed, Lords prayer and Chriſtian Decalogue, are delivered to us both in the ſaid Scriptures, and by diſtinct Tradition; which alſo hath brought down to us the Scripture it ſelf: Not a Tradition depending on the pretended Authority of the Roman Pope or party, or on any other that ſhall pretend the like; But that Hiſtorical Evidence of matter of fact, which is ſurelier given us by all ſorts of Chriſtians, taking in the Concord of many Hereticks, Infidels and Enemies; which evidence dependeth not on the credit of ſupernatural Revelation, but on the natural credibility yea and certainty of ſuch univerſal Circumſtantiated Concordant teſtimony; and is neceſſarily antecedent to the Belief of ſupernatural Revelations in the particulars, as ſight and hearing were in the auditors of Chriſt and the Apoſtles; ſeeing theſe two Acts of Knowledge, [Whatever God ſaith is True; and This God ſaith] muſt neceſſarily go before our Belief or Truſt that [This is True, becauſe God ſaith it.] And ſo we run not in a circle, and need not a ſupernatural faith, for the founding of our firſt ſupernatural faith; that is, A firſt before the firſt.]

Without fraud or obſcurity this is our faith and Religion.

Now do you as honeſtly and plainly tell me What is Yours, which D. muſt be perſwaded to: For I confeſs that I take it to be an unintelligible thing, and deſpair that ever you give any man a certain notice, what it is, which may be truly called the Religion of your Roman-Catholick-Church.

I ſhall make you underſtand it if you are willing: But 1. Note that [Religion] being a larger word than [faith] includeth alſo [Practice] or [Manners], we muſt give you a diſtinct account of each: For they have not the ſame Cauſes: Our Faith is Divine; But our Manners or Practice muſt follow the Laws of the Church, as well as the Immediate Laws of God: Theſe muſt not be confounded.

Man hath three faculties, Intellective, Volitive and Vitally-Executive, or Active: Our Religion ſubjectively muſt be in all, viz. The Sanctity of all, by Holy Life, Light and Love: And therefore the Rule which is our objective Religion doth extend to all, (to Intellect, Will and Practice). And ſurely for All, there is a Rule directly Divine, given by Inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt or Chriſts own words, and ſubordinate Rules by Chriſts Miniſters, which are directly Humane, and no otherwiſe Divine than as God hath in General authorized them thereto. Even as the Soveraign hath the only Ʋniverſal Legiſlative power, and Magiſtrates by Him are authorized to ſubordinate mandates and acts of Government. And ſo we have a Divine Faith and Revelation, and a ſubordinate Humane faith and Miniſterial Revelation or Preaching: We have Divine Perſwaſions, and ſubordinate Perſwaſions of men: We have Divine Laws, yea and executions; and we have Humane ſubordinate Laws and executions. If you reſolve to call the Humane, Divine ſo far as they are indeed Authorized by God, I will not quarrel about words: But remember, 1. That ſo you muſt do alſo on the ſame reaſons, by the Laws of Kings and the Commands of Parents, who are as much authorized by God to their proper Government. 2. And I hope you mean not to Confound theſe Humane Laws, with Gods own Ʋniverſal Laws, nor humane faith with Divine faith. And be it known to you, It is the Divine Revelations and Laws as diſtinct from the Humane, which we are now calling our Religion, and diſputing of; though this Religion teach us to obey Parents, Paſtors and Princes, and that obedience may be conſequentially and reductively called Religious if you pleaſe. But if really your Religion be not Divine, but Humane, let us know it. For by the word [Religion] we eſſentially mean that which is [Divine.]

Men were the ſpeakers and writers of the Scriptures, and ſo far they are humane, as well as the Decrees of the preſent Church.

The Decalogue was witten by God, and delivered by the Miniſtry of Angels: Chriſt was owned by a Voice from Heaven. And himſelf ſpake and did moſt recited by the four Evangeliſts: And the Prophets and Apoſtles ſpake by the immediate Infallible Inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt: So that the Holy Ghoſt is the Author of the Scriptures. But the preſent Paſtors of the Church inſtead of that Immediate Revelation from God by the Spirits Inſpiration, have but the ordinary help of the Spirit, to underſtand thoſe ſame Revelations, and that proportioned to the meaſure of their diligence, natural parts and helps of Art, as the knowledge of Theologie is attained by other Students; who are none of them perfect or free from error.

I will tell you what our Religion is, It is Gods Word concerning things to be Believed and Done delivered partly in the Canonical Scriptures, and partly by Oral Tradition, and received by the Church, and by it delivered to us. The Trent. Catech. Prefac. q. 12. ſaith,Q. Was it from the Church that the firſt Church received it? Or was it not the ſame Divine Religion which the firſt Church (whether Council or Practicers) received without the Tradition of Council or Practicers? If ſo, this cannot be eſſential to Religion. If the Apoſtles words were to be believed, their proved Writings are to be believed. And their Writings were proved theirs before a General Council or Univerſal Practice witneſſed it: Even by each Church and perſon that received any Epiſtle from any one of them. Omnis doctrinae ratio, quae fidelibus tradenda ſit, verbo Dei continetur, quod in Scripturam, Traditioneſ que diſtributum eſt. The Reaſon of every doctrine which is to be delivered to the faithful, is contained in the Word of God, which is diſtributed into the Scripture and Traditions.

Vide Concil. Senonenſ. in Bin. Decr. 5. p. 671. & Concil. Tridentini Seſſ. 4. p. 802. — Perſpicienſque hanc Veritatem & diſciplinam contineri in libris ſacris, & ſine ſcripto Traditionibus, quae ex ipſius Chriſti ore ab Apoſtolis acceptae, & ab ipſi, Apoſtolis Spiritu ſancto dictante quaſi per manus traditae, ad nos uſque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum patrum ſententiam ſequuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Teſtamenti, nec non Traditiones ipſas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Chriſto, vel a Spiritu ſancto dicta…as, & continua ſucceſſione in Eccleſia Catholica conſervatas, pari pietatis affectu & reverentia ſuſcipit ac veneratur.

Bellarmin. de Verbo Dei, lib. 4. c. 2, 3. ſheweth the divers ſorts of unwritten Traditions which are part of Gods Word: ſome de ſide, as the perpetual Virginity of Mary, that there are but four Goſpels, &c. and ſome of Manners; as Croſſing, Faſt-dayes, &c. Eaſter, Whitſontide, and other Feſtivals.

Veron de Reg. fid. cap. 2. ſaith,

[The total and only Rule of the Catholick faith, to which all are obliged under pain of Hereſie and Excommunication, is Divine Revelation delivered to the Prophets and Apoſtles, propoſed by the Catholick Church in her General Councils, or by her Univerſal practice, to be believed as an Article of Catholick faith.]

[All that is of this nature is an Article or doctrine of faith. And no other doctrine can be of faith, if either the firſt Condition fail, viz. Divine Revelation, or the ſecond, which is a Propoſal by the Univerſal Church.] p. 5. No doctrine grounded on Scripture diverſly interpreted, either by the antient Fathers or our Modern Doctors, is an Article of faith. For ſuch a doctrine, though it may be revealed, yet the revelation is not aſcertained to us, nor propoſed by the Church: — Nor any Propoſition which can be proved only by conſequence drawn from Scripture,So that if the Doctors will but differ in their Expoſitions, the Scripture is no more the ſure Word of God, or to be believed by Catholick faith. though the conſequences were certain and evident, and deduced from two propoſitions of Scripture —Yet theſe doctrines are Certain, when the premiſes are ſo. — Gratians decrees — the Papal decrees contained in the body of the Canon Law, none of them do conſtitute an Article of ſaith—Nor that which is defined in Provincial Councils, though the Pope preſide in perſon — for the ſecond condition is alwayes wanting in this caſe, and very often the firſt—p. 11. I did not ſay that ſuch definitions were not of faith — but they are not of Catholick faith, Of the Pope without a General Council.or which all as Catholicks are bound to hold as of faith, and the contrary to which is heretical, and removeth from the boſome of the Church.Mark then, that it may be de fide divina, though not of Catholick neceſſity without the propoſal of Council or univerſal practice.—p. 12, 13. The Practice even of the Ʋniverſal Church is no ſufficient ground for an Article of Catholick faith, by reaſon the object of faith is Truth: and oft times the Church proceeds in matter of practice, upon probable Opinions, and this probability is ſufficient to juſtifie the practice, which the Church on juſt cauſe may change: As e. g. as Vaſquez teacheth, the Church did antiently pray in the Maſs for Infidels alive, and Catechumens dead, and the Sacrifice of the Maſs was offered for them, and yet he — rather inclineth to the contrary, that the Sacrifice of the Maſs ought not to be offered, but for the faithful living and dead, by which Opinion the Church ſeemeth guided at preſent. But Vaſquez anſwers, that the Church following a probable opinion did practiſe that which ſhe did not declare to be of faith. — p. 15. So General Councils when they mention any thing in this manner (by way of ſimple aſſertion) and do not properly define: For as Bellarmine affirms, it is neceſſary that General Councils properly define the thing in queſtion, as a Decree which ought to be held as of Catholick faith. Hence Bellarmine adds, they are not properly Hereticks, who hold the Pope not to be above all Councils, though he ſay the laſt Laterane Council under Leo the tenth Seſ. 11. expreſly and profeſſedly teacheth that the Pope is above all Councils, and rejects the contrary Decree of the Council of Baſil: becauſe it is doubtful whether the Laterane Council defined that doctrine properly as a Decree to be believed with Catholick faith. The ſame Bellarm. (de Concil. l. 2. c. 19.) alſo requireth that the definition be made Conciliarly: Pope Martin the fifth ſaid, he only confirmed thoſe Decrees of faith which were made in the Council of Conſtance, Conciliariter: that is, after the manner of other Councils, the queſtion being firſt diligently examined: But its clear (ſaith he) that this Decree, that a General Council hath immediate authority from Chriſt, which all, even the Pope, are bound to obey, was made without any examining—p. 17. The object defined muſt be truly and properly an object of faith; and a Decree ought to be on a thing univerſally propoſed to the whole Church—Vaſquez holds: It is not at all erroneous to affirm that a General Council may err in Precepts, and in particular Judgements —and (p. 19.) in framing Laws not neceſſary to ſalvation; or making ſuperfluous Laws— Without all doubt a General Council may err in a queſtion of fact: (which depends on teſtimony and information of men:) So the ſixth General Council condemned Honorius of Hereſie by falſe Information, and miſunderſtanding his Epiſtles. — p. 20. The Pope (ſaith Suarez) to a particular action belonging to humane Prudence, hath no infallible aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt —As that ſuch or ſuch an excommunication is valid, or that ſuch or ſuch a Kingdom is diſpoſable by the Pope for ſuch and ſuch cauſes.]

So far Veron, who is moſt favourable to you, in narrowing our faith.

Thus far you have reſolved me: but I muſt crave ſomewhat more. Qu. I. Are there no Eſſential Conſtitutive parts of your Religion, more neceſſary than the Integrals and Accidentals? Have you no deſcription for it, but that It is Divine Revelation propoſed by the Church? The Doctrine of Sacrificing was a Divine Revelation to Adam, and the difference of clean and unclean Beaſts to Noah, and the Jewiſh Law was Gods Revelation to Moſes and them: And yet I ſuppoſe Chriſtianity is ſomewhat different from all theſe. Is not Chriſtianity your Religion? Hath Chriſtianity no Conſtitutive ſpecial Eſſence, but only the Genus of Divine Revelation which is common to that with all other Divine Revelations? And what if you add [to a Prophet or Apoſtle]? Was Agabus Propheſie of Paul, or Pauls of the event of the ſhipwrack, &c. eſſential to Chriſtianity? Hath Chriſtianity no Eſſence? Or is all Divine Revelation eſſential to it?

You take advantage of the diſagreement of our Doctors. You know that ſome few acknowledg diſtinct fundamentals;Johnſ. Nov. Rep. p. 19. of the explication of Terms: Know you not, that Divines are divided, what are the points neceſſary to be believed explicitely neceſſitate medii: Some, and thoſe the more antient hold, that the explicite belief of God, of the whole Trinity, of Chriſt, his Paſſion, Reſurrection, &c. are neceſſary neceſſitate medii: Others among the recentiors, that no more than the belief of the Deity, and that he is the rewarder of our works, is abſeſolutely neceſſary with that neceſſary, to be explicitely believed. and ſome deny the diſtinction in your ſenſe: And moſt of us ſay, that no man can enumerate the things neceſſary to all, but that it dependeth upon mens various capacities, educations, and means of knowing. And in ſum, that no more is neceſſary to all to be explicitly believed, but that Gods Revelations are true; and that All are Gods Revelations which the Church propoſeth as ſuch.

You may take our judgement much from him that cometh neareſt to you, whom I have heard you much praiſe, as moſt moderate and judicious, viz. Dr. H. Holden Anal. fid. l. 1. c, 5. Lect. 2. p. 53.

[Divines diſputing of the neceſſity of points to be believed, do commonly tend this way, to denote the Articles of things revealed, the explicite and expreſs belief whereof, is (as they opine) altogether neceſſary to all Chriſtians. The reſolution of which queſtion is among them ſo doubtful and uncertain, as that they are in this (as ☞ they are in all things elſe) diſtracted and divided into various Opinions: which they that care for them, may ſeek: To me they are as Nothing, while the Authors of them profeſs, that they have nothing of Certainty. Yea, to one that meditateth the matter it ſelf, laying by all preoccupation, it is moſt clearly manifeſt, that the Reſolution of this queſtion is not only unprofitable, that I ſay not pernicious, (as it is handled by Divines); but alſo vain and impoſſible. It is unprofitable, becauſe no good accrueth by it to ſouls. ☞ It is pernicious, while Divines for the moſt part aſſert, that only One or Two Articles, yea, (as ſome ſay) no ſingular Article at all, is neceſſary to be believed of all by an explicite faith. For hence (however the truth of the matter be) the colder Chriſtians taking occaſion, do little care to obtain that degree of Knowledge in the Myſteries of faith, which they might commodiouſly and eaſily attain. It is Impoſſible, ſeeing it is Manifeſt, that no particular Rule or Points to be believed, or Number of Articles can in this Matter be given or aſſigned, which ſhall be wholly common and neceſſary to all Chriſtians: For this dependeth on every individual mans natural capacity, means of inſtruction, and all the other circumſtances of each mans life and diſpoſition, which are to each man ſo ſpecial, that we can determine of nothing at all that is common to all.

But I handle the Neceſſity of points to be Believed in a far other ſenſe: For the Articles of the Chriſtian faith, which I now call neceſſary, I do not at all underſtand to be ſuch as all and every one muſt diſtinctly know, or hold by explicite aſſent; But I mean only ſuch, the belief of which is accounted univerſally by the whole Catholick Church, ſo ſubſtantial and eſſential, as that he that will deſervedly be eſteemed, and truly be a member of it, muſt needs adhere to them all at leaſt Implicitely and Indirectly:He doth better interpret the diſtinction of Explicite and Implicite on another occaſion, in another ſenſe. that is, by believing whatſoever the holy and Univerſal Church doth Catholickly believe and teach as a Revealed Doctrine and Article of divine faith. And therefore he is for that cauſe to be removed from its Communion and Society, who ſhall pertinaciouſly and obſtinately deny the leaſt of them, much more if he maintain the contrary, while he knoweth and ſeeth that it is the Univerſal ſentence of that Church, that we muſt adhere to that as an Article of faith. And in this ſenſe I will henceforth uſe the word Neceſſity.

This might have been ſaid in fewer and plainer words, viz. That your Divines herein do commonly err, and that perniciouſly, and yet that indeed he is of the ſame mind; viz. that It is impoſſible to name the Articles neceſſary to be believed explicitely of all, becauſe each mans divers capacity, means and circumſtances diverſifie them to each: But that only this one thing is explicitely to be believed, [That whatſoever the Holy and Univerſal Church doth Catholickly believe and teach as a Revealed Doctrine and Article of faith, is true.] And therefore that no man muſt pertinaciouſly deny any thing which he knoweth the Church ſo holdeth. So that nothing is neceſſarily to be believed actually and indeed, but Gods and the Churches Veracity.

Another of ours that cometh as near you as moſt, openeth this more fully, Davenport alias Fr. a Sancta Clara, De. Nat. Grat. p. 111, &c.

[As to the Ignorance of thoſe things that are of neceſſity of Means, or End, there is difference among the Doctors: For Soto 4. d. 5. q. 5. & l. de Nat. & Grat. c. 12. & Vega l. 6. c. 20. ſup. Trid. hold that now in the Law of Grace there is no more explicite faith required, than in the Law of Nature. Yea, Vega ib. & Gabriel 2. d. 21. q. 2. ar. 3. & 3. d. 21. q. 2. think that in the Law of Nature, and in Caſes in the Law of Grace, ſome may be ſaved with only natural knowledge, and that the habit of faith, is not required. Whom Horantius terms men of great name, and will not accuſe of hereſie. I would this great mans modeſty were more frequent with modern Doctors. Yea, Alvarez de aux. diſp. 56. with others, ſeemeth to hold, that to juſtification there is not at all required the knowledge of a ſupernatural object (or the ſupernatural knowledge of the object.) Others hold, That both to Grace and Glory is required an explicite belief of Chriſt. Bonav. 3. d. 25, &c. Others, that at leaſt to ſalvation is an explicite belief of the Goſpel or of Chriſt, though not to Grace or Juſtification. And this is common in the Schools, as Ferera ſhews that followeth it: And for this Opinion Scotus is cited —

But I think he holdeth, that explicite belief of Chriſt or the Goſpel, is not of neceſſity of means as to Grace or Glory, as 4. d. 3. q. 4. What is plainer than that now— men may be ſaved without the explicite belief of Chriſt—And I plainly think its Scotus's and the common opinion, which Vega followeth, and Faber 4. d. 3. and Petigianis very well, and of the Thomiſts Bannes 2.2. q. 2. a. 8. Canus and others: Yea, the Trent Council ſeemeth to favour it, Seſſ. 6. c. 4. —p. 114. So Corduba, Medina, Bradwardine.— ☞ And ſuch (as have no explicite faith in Chriſt) are not formally without the Church. This way go Victoria in 4. Relect. 4. tit. Richard de Villa med. 3.25. a. 3. q. 1, &c.

Well ſaith Petigianis 2. d. 35. q. 1. a. 9. that if there were a ſimple old woman to whom ſome falſe Opinion were preached by a falſe Prophet (e. g. that the ſubſtance of Bread remaineth with the body of Chriſt in the Sacrament) and ſhe believe it: Doth ſhe ſin by this? No.—p. 119. Yea, if ſhe ſo err through piety, thinking that the Church ſo believeth, perhaps ſhe ſhould merit.—p. 120. For my part I think that the Vulgar committing themſelves to the inſtruction of the Paſtors, truſting of their knowledge and goodneſs, if they be deceived, it will be taken for invincible ignorance, or at leaſt probable, (as Herera) which excuſeth from faultineſs. —Yea, ſome Doctors give ſo much to the Inſtruction of Paſtors, that have the care of the Sheep, that if they ſhould teach, that ☞ hic & nunc God would be hated, the rude Pariſhioner were bound to believe him: which yet I think falſe— p. 123. It ſeemeth at this day to be the common judgement of the Schools and Divines, that the Laity erring with their Doctors or Paſtors are altogether excuſed from all fault; ☞ Yea, oft times ſo materially erring do merit for the act of Chriſtian obedience which they owe their Paſtors: as you may ſee in Valent. To. 3. diſp. 1. q. 2. p. 5. and others. So Angles 2. d. 22. q. 2. dub. 7. Vaſqu. p. 2. diſp. 121. In caſe they never doubted of the Veracity of their Prelates —

Much more ſaith Sancta Clara there, to prove that the ignorant Proteſtants here may be ſaved; citing further to his end, Zanchez in Decal. l. 2. c. 1. n. 8. Alph. a Caſtro, Simanca, Argon, Tanner, Faber, Eman…ſa, Rozell. And out of Argon tells us when Faith is ſufficiently propoſed, viz. [When faith is ſo confirmed by Reaſons, holineſs of life, the confutation of the contrary errors, and by ſome ſigns, as that Reaſon it ſelf beginneth prudently to preſcribe, that the matters of faith heard are to be believed, and the contrary Sect is falſe.] p. 125.

And probl. 16. p. 127. Whether men may be blameleſly ignorant of the Law of Nature and the Decalogue? The common opinion is that they may; not of the firſt principles, but 1. Of the eaſie concluſions for ſome time, and of the remoter concluſions for a longer time: Such are the Commandments of the Decalogue as to the ſubſtance of the act; as in ſome lying, theft, fornication, manſlaughter (in Will at leaſt) &c.

Qu. II. But do you think that men may not as invincibly and inculpably be unacquainted with the Authority of the Pope and Roman Councils or Church, as you ſay they may be ignorant of Chriſt,Holden. l. 1. c. 9. p. 169. Queret an teneatur quiſpiam a… internum Divinae fidei actum, quem nec ſemper fortaſſe in eius poteſtate ſitum novimus? Quamdiu ſane arbitretur quiſpiam hujuſmodi fidei actum lumini naturali & rationi oppoſitum & contrarium eſſe, nequaquam poterit ad illum eliciendum aſtringi. and the Law of Nature? I inſtance in the millions of the Abaſſme Chriſtians, who for above a thouſand years never heard from the Pope or his emiſſaries.

That cannot be denyed: For they have not the neceſſary means.

How then do you make your Churches propoſal to be the neceſſary point to be Explicitely believed of all?

We do not mean it of all that Will be ſaved: For you hear that ſome may be ſaved without any explicite belief of Chriſt. But we mean it of all that will be in the Church, and be ſaved there.

But do you not hold and ſay, that out of the Church there is no ſalvation?

Some ſay ſo: and ſome ſay that It is rare out of the Church.

But are the Ethiopian Chriſtians out of the Church?

They are out of the true Church, being Schiſmaticks.

Why ſaid your Author before, that Infidels were not formally out of the Church who are invincibly ignorant?

But other Doctors are of another opinion.

But Chriſt is the Saviour of his body: Are not thoſe of the Church who are ſaved, or in a ſtate of ſalvation? What hold you of that?

Some ſay, They are all of the Church: and others that Chriſt ſaveth more than his Church: And ſome ſay, that They are of the Church Regenerate, but not of the Church Congregate. But few own this, becauſe it is your diſtinction: as of a viſible and inviſible Church.

Qu. III. But above all, I would know of you, what you mean by the Catholick Church, whoſe propoſal is neceſſary to the being of faith?

We mean the Roman Catholick Church: that is, the Pope and his Subjects.

Do you mean the Pope without a General Council, or a General Council without the Pope? or only both agreeing and conjunct?

You take advantage of our differences: but thoſe do but ſhew, that this is no point of faith. Some hold that the Pope alone may ſerve: and ſome, that the Pope in a Provincial Council: and ſome that a General Council without him: But you heard Veron taketh in the Council, and it is no true Council without the Pope: And therefore the ſureſt opinion ſaith, that it muſt be both in Concord.

But what is the Ʋniverſal Church whoſe Practice is made ſufficient inſtead of, or without a General Council?

It is the whole Roman Church real, diſtinct from the Repreſentative.

Is it the Clergy only, or the Laity only; or muſt it be both?

Both, but not equally; but in their ſeveral places.

Muſt it be All the Church, without any excepted? Or only the greater part?

Theſe are points not agreed of, and therefore not of faith. Some ſay that it muſt be ſo many as that the diſſenters be not conſiderable. But how many are conſiderable or inconſiderable is undetermined. Others ſay, It may be the minor part that practiſe, ſo be it the reſt do not contradict it, or do contrarily.

I will trouble you with no more ſuch queſtions, (though I have a multitude which ſhould be here reſolved) for I perceive that we muſt expect nothing but a Maze of uncertainties and confuſion.

We are next in order to Agree upon our common principles which muſt be ſuppoſed in our following Diſpute: For they that Agree in nothing, are uncapable of diſputing of any thing; ſeeing all concluſions of which we doubt, muſt be drawn from more evident truths, of which we are leſs doubtful, and reſolved into a conceded Principle.

Full and Easy Satisfaction, Part 1

p. 1PART. I. What is the Proteſtants Religion, and what the Papiſts.

CHAP. I. The occaſion of the Conference.

CHAP. II. The Conditions of the Conference; between a P. and R. and D.

CHAP. III. What is the Religion of the Proteſtants.

p. 25CHAP. IV. What is the Papiſts Religion.

PART. I. What is the Proteſtants Religion, and what the Papiſts.

CHAP. IV. What is the Papiſts Religion.