This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.
To sett you in the waye you must first tell me what you thinke this word necessitie doth importe, so farr as it concerne's our pourpose?
You know I am no great cla••ke, and therefo∣re I cannot speake of necessi∣tie, nether as a Gramarian nor
as a Logician, but as farr as I vnderstand and intende by my question, there is two sor∣tes of necessities, the one so ab∣solute as that the thing we de∣sire cannot without such a meanes be anie waies gotten or dōne; the other in respect of such a meanes without the which our desire cannot bee well and conueniently obtai∣ned. For we commonly saie that such or such a thing can∣not be done or gotten, when it is extreme hard and paine∣full to gett it. And therefore some times we call that neces∣sarie without which our desi∣re cannot be fullfilled but with great labour and diffi∣cultie, and some times that, without which it cannot ab∣solutely be compassed.
Mary, cozen, you neede nether Gramarian nor Logician to helpe you, nor to mende what you haue said. But since you are so skilfull, and that you now see what is necessarie in generall, to witt the know ledge of Christian do∣ctrine, and what it is to be ne∣cessarie, I will trouble you with a farther demāde, giuing you first this caueat, That my in∣tention is not to examine or declare what expresse and di∣stinct knowledge or beliefe ought euerie particular and indiuiduall man to haue, whithout which he cannot possibly be saued, this being a thing depending of so manie secret and vnknowne circum∣stances, as that it seemeth to be specialy reserued as only
befitting God's infinite wis∣dome and deuine iustice. though some times a prudent man may shrodly guesse, and in a possible supposition of a particular man's dying with∣out repentance in a positiue and wilfull contradicting be∣liefe to the doctrine of the Catholike church, it would be no breach of charitie to con∣clude his dānation. Yet at this present we will only speake of the necessitie of knowing and belieuing seuerall contro∣uerted pointes of Christian doctrine in respect of a church or cōpanie of profes∣sed Christians in cōmon, and not as the knowledge thereof is necessarie to euerie parti∣cular man. Now therefore tell me, what is the end for which
this knowledge of Christian doctrine is necessarie?
That I suppose no man doubteh but t'is hea∣uen, or in more learned ter∣mes, the sight or true and proper knowledge of All∣mightie God, who being the cause and Creator of All things, he that clearely see's and tru••y know's him, will see and know all other things in him, which all together fall so farr short of giuing such content as is taken by seeing him that the sight of him is only accompted Blisse, and the sight of all the rest is but a retenue and conuenien∣ce of that first and cheefe sight, which of it self alone is our essentiall Happinesse.
This I confesse, co∣zen,
is both verie true and ve∣rie well said of you, but yet I must haue an other answere: for sure you haue ouer skipp't some thing. What connection is there, I pray, betwixt the knowledge of Christian do∣ctrine and seeing of Allmigh∣tie God? Some thing, I saie, must of necessitie be betwixt them, for which, what soeuer it be, the knowledge of Chri∣stian doctrine will be more immediately necessarie. Wh∣ich if you can tell me what it is, we shall thereby more ea∣sily discouer and conceiue what and how farr this kno∣wledge of Christian doctrine is necessarie for vs.
Why vncle, you know I haue beene taught no farther then to know what I
ought to belieue and doe, and that in belieuing and doeing so, I shall come to heauen.
And were you not taught that the commande∣ments were resumed and cō∣prehended in two, to wit in the loue of God and of your neighour?
Yes that I was, but what that appertaine's to your question, that I vnder∣stand not, vnlesse peraduentu∣re your meaning be, that the accomplishment of these two lawes is the immediate stepp to our Blisse. Which as I see t'is verie likely, yet doe I not fully conceiue why it should be so, vnlesse heauē goe by wishing, whereas I haue still beene tau∣ght it goe's by working, and that violence must carrie it.
Did you neuer take notice of your selfe, how that if you harken to a discourse of anie thing which you ve∣hemētly desire to know how attentiue you are? how feare∣full that anie word should slippe vnheard or not vnder∣stood? how quiet you keepe all your thoughts? how still and vntrouble•• your phan∣sie? that what you heare may sinke downe into your soule as distinctly, and in the same frame and order as it floweth from the speaker? So you see that the loue or desire to know anie thing is the most efficacious disposition we can haue to attaine to the know∣ledge thereof. Now you know that this life and con∣uersation of the soule in hir
bodie is giuen hir to prepare and dispose hir selfe for the next life, Is it not therefore euident that that soule which most desire's to see and know God, that is, which most loueth God, in this life, and particularly in the time of hir departure out of this world, goe's out of hir bodie with the best and perfectest prepa∣ration and disposition to see and know God in the life to come, which is our expected and eternall happinesse? Nor is this against what you haue beene taught, for loue is the most actiue and consequently the most violent thing in the world, and therefore if heauē must be obtained by violēce, loue certainely must be the waye. Wherefore you see, we
are to considere the necessitie of controuerted pointes of Religion in as much as of their owne nature and of thē selues they doe cause and make professours of christia∣nitie to loue God, and desire to see him. For sithēce this loue and desire is the meanes and waye to heauen, it must nee∣des follow that according as anie pointe or position doth produce or contribute to this effect in the soules of Chri∣stians, the necessitie of such a pointe must bee of the same degree. There is a necessitie of belieuing all points of faith in generall, out of an other principle, to witt, in that the church proposeth them vnto vs as such, which we must ac∣cept and belieue in all or no∣ne,
being the same reason and motiue in all, but this I shall take occasion an other time to shew vnto you. You will saie peraduēture if this be so, what neede's the knowledge of Christian doctrine? can there be imagined a greatter mo∣tiue of loue then that God is, and that he is goodnesse it sel∣fe? Is not this alone a sufficiēt motiue to make all creatures melt into the loue of him? And this suerly may be knowne by pure naturall rea∣sō. Why thē is the knowledge of pointes disputed betwixt the Protestants and vs to be held necessarie? Nay to what end must we needes know anie part of Christ's law for the attaining of Blisse, since loue will doe it, and the most
efficacious motiue of loue is to be had with out it?
You haue posed me now, for truly I see that goodneesse is able to rauish all the harts in the world, and this is so cleere and common that it neede's no proofe. Wherefore me thinke's if mē would considere and follow this motiue of God's infinite goodnesse, they would not want loue, and not wanting loue, according to your dis∣course, th••y must of necessitie attaine to euerlasting Blisse and Happinesse. Why there∣fore anie other knowledge should be absolutly necessarie I see not, much lesse doe I cōceiue wherefore we should thinke
The ne∣cessitie of knouing pointes of faith is to be compa∣red to a church or cōpa∣nie of be∣lieuers and not to euerie particu∣larman.
How be kno∣wledge of Chri∣stian doctrine cometh to be nessarie to sal∣uation.