that those persons sinned mortally who accompanied without hope of issue Seaventhly they held all things done above the girdle by kissing touching words compression of the breasts c. to be done in Charity and not against Continency Eightly that neither Priest nor civill Magistrate being guilty of mortall sinne did enjoy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Iudges Tenthly they affirmed singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleaventhly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their faith and made Offertories confessions and communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so unlearned that saith Fox he gave rewards to certain learned men to translate the holy Scripture for him and being thus holpen did as the same Fox there reporteth confer the forme of religion in his time to the infallible word of God A goodly example for such as must needs have the Scripture in English to be read by every simple body with such fruit of Godly doctrine as we have seen in the foresaid grosse heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Master so unlearned that some of them â—aith Fox expounded the words Ioan. 1. Sui eum non receperunt Swine did not receive him And to conclude they agreed in divers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seen in Brerely 51 Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For for besides that the same things are testified by Protestant writers as Iâ—â—yricus Coâ—per and others our Authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of Protestants unlesse you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred yeares agoe did both foresee that there were to bee Protestants in the world and that such Protestants were to be like the Waldenses Besides from whence but from our Histories are Protestants come to know that there were any such men as the Waldenses and that in some points they agreed with the Protestants disagreed from them in others And upon what ground can they belieue our Authors for that part wherein the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagine they lyed in the rest 52 Neither could Wiccliffe continue a Church never interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he lived more then one hundred and fifty yeares to wit the yeare 1371. Hee agreed with Catholiques about the worshipping of Reliques and Images and about the Intercession of our blessed Lady the ever Immaculate Mother of God he went so far as to say It seemes to me impossible that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary He held seaven Sacraments Purgatory and other points And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable doctrines as divers Protestant Writers relate As first If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sinne he doth not indeed either giue Orders Consecrate or Baptize Secondly That Ecclesiasticall Ministers ought not to haue any temporall possessions nor propriety in any thing but should beg and yet he himselfe brake into heresie because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certain Benefice as all Schismes and heresies beginne upon passion which they seek to cover with the cloak of Reformation Thirdly he condemned lawfull Oathes like the Anabaptists Fourthly he taught that all things came to passe by absolute necessity Fiftly he defended human merits as the wicked Pelagians did namely as proceeding from naturall forces without the necessary help of God's grace Sixtly that no man is a Civill Magistrate while he is in mortall sinne and that the people may at their pleasure correct Princes when they offend by which doctrine he proues himselfe both an Heretique and a Traytour 53 As for Husse his chiefest Doctrines were That Lay people must receive in both kinders and That Civill Lords Prelates and Bishops loose all right and authority while they are in mortall sinne For other things he wholy agreed with Catholiques against Protestants and the Bohemians his followers being demanded in what points they disagreed from the Church of Rome propounded only these The necessity of Communion under both kinds That all Civill Dominion was forbidden to the Clergy That Preaching of the word was free for all men and in all places That open Crimes were in no wise to be permitted for avoiding of greater evill By these particulars it is apparant that Husse agreed with Protestants against us in one only point of both kindes â—hich according to Luther is a thing indifferent because he teacheth that Christ in this matter commanded nothing as necessary And he saith further If thou come to a place where one only kinde is administred use one kinde only as others doe Melancthon likewise holds it a thing indifferent and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants All which considered it is cleer that Protestants cannot challenge the Waldenses Wickliffe and Husse for members of their Church and although they could yet that would advantage them little towards the finding out a perpetuall visible Church of theirs for the reasons aboue specified 54 If D Potter would goe so farre off as to fetch the Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines into his Church they would proue over deare bought For they either hold the damnable heresy of Euâ—iches or use Circumcision or agree with the Greek or Roman Church And it is most certaine that they have nothing to doe with the doctrine of the Protestants 55 It being therefore granted that Christ had a visible Church in all ages and that there can be none assigned but the Church of Rome it followes that she is the true Cath. Church and that those pretended Corruptions for which they forsook her are indeed divine truths delivered by the visible Catholique Church of Christ And that Luther and his followers departed from her and consequently are guilty of Schisme by dividing themselves from the Communion of the Roman Church Which is cleerly convinced out of D. Potter himself although the Roman Church were but a particular Church For he saith Whosoever professes himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ must confesse himself consequently to forsake the whole Since therefore in the same place he expressely acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the body of Christ and that it is cleere they have forsaken her it evidently followes that they haue forsaken the whole and therefore are most properly Schismatiques 56 And lastly since the crime of Schisme is so grievous that according to the doctrine of holy Fathers rehearsed aboue no multitude of good works no morall honesty of life no cruel death endured even for the profession of some Article of faith can excuse any one who is guilty of that sinne from damnation I leaue it to be considered whether it be not true Charity to speak as wee believe and
out of Principles received by them are all peremptory that though novelty be a certain note of falshood yet no antiquity lesse then Apostolicall is a certain note of truth Yet this I say not as if I did acknowledge what you pretend that Protestants did confesse the Fathers against them in this point For the point here issuable is not whether S. Peter were head of the Church Nor whether the Bishop of Rome had any priority in the Church Nor whether he had authority over it given him by the Church But whether by Divine right and by Christs appointment he were Head of the Catholique Church Now having perused Brerely I cannot find any one Protestant confessing any one Father to haue concurred in opinion with you in this point And the Reader hath reason to suspect that you also out of all the Fathers could not finde any one authority pertinent to this purpose for otherwise you were much to blame citing so few to make choice of such as are impertinent For let the understanding Reader peruse the 55. Epist. of S. Cyprian with any ordinary attention out of which you take your first place and I am confident hee shall finde that he meanes nothing else by the words quoted by you But that in one particular Church at one time there ought to bee but one Bishop and that he should be obeyed in all things lawfull The non-performance whereof was one of the most ordinary causes of heresies against the Faith and Schisme from the Communion of the Church Vniversall He shall finde secondly and that by many convincing Arguments that though he write to Cornelius Bishop of Rome yet hee speaks not of him but of himselfe then Bishop of Carthage against whom a faction of Schismatiques had then set up another And therefore here your ingenuitie is to bee commended aboue many of your side For whereas they ordinarily abuse this place to prove that in the whole Church there ought to be but one Priest and one Iudge you seem somewhat diffident hereof and thereupon say that these words plainly condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church But whether they condemne Luther is another Question The question here is whether they plainly proue the Popes Supremacy over al other Bishops which certainly they are as far from proving as from proving the supremacy of any other Bishop seeing it is evident they were intended not of one Bishop over the whole Catholique Church but of one Bishop in one particular Church 99 And no lesse impertinent is your saying out of Optatus if it be well lookt into though at the first sight it may seem otherwise because Optatus his scene happened to be Rome whereas S. Cyprians was Carthage The truth is the Donatists had set up at Rome a Bishop of their faction not with intent to make him Bishop of the whole Church but of that Church in particular Now Optatus going upon S. Cyprians aboue mentioned ground of one Bishop in one Church proves them Schismatiques for so doing and he proves it by this Argument S. Peter was first Bishop of Rome neither did the Apostles attribute to themselves each one his particular Chaire understand in that Citty for in other places others I hope had Chaires besides S. Peter and therefore he is a Schismatique who against that one single Chaire erects another understand as before in that place making another Bishop of that Diocesse besides him who was lawfully elected to it 100 But yet by the way he stiles S. Peter head of the Apostles and saies that from thence he was called Cephas Ans. Perhaps he was abused into this opinion by thinking Cephas derived from the greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a head whereas it is a Syriack word and signifies a stone Besides S. Peter might be head of the Apostles that is first in order and honour among them and not have supreme Authority over them And indeed that S. Peter should have authority overall the Apostles and yet exercise no one act of Authority over any one of them and that they should shew to him no signe of subjection me thinkes is as strange as that a King of England for twenty five yeares should doe no Act of Regality nor receive any one acknowledgement of it As strange me thinks it is that you so many ages after should know this so certainly as you pretend to doe and that the Apostles after that those words were spoken in their hearing by vertue whereof S. Peter is pretended to have been made their head should still be so ignorant of it as to question which of them should be the greatest yet more strange that our Saviour should not bring them out of their error by telling them S. Peter was the man but rather confirme it by saying the Kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them but it should not be so among them No lesse a wonder was it that S. Paul should so farre forget S. Peter and himselfe as that first mentioning him often he should doe it without any title of Honour Secondly speaking of the severall degrees of men in the Church he should not give S. Peter the highest but place him in equipage with the rest of the Apostles and say God hath appointed not first Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets Certainly if the Apostles were all first to me it is very probable that no one of them was before the rest For by First all men understand either that which is before all or that before which is nothing Now in the former sense the Apostles could not be all first for then every one of them must have been before every one of the rest And therefore they must be First in the other sense And therefore No man and therefore not S. Peter must be before any of them Thirdly and Lastly that speaking of himselfe in particular and perhaps comparing himselfe with S. Peter in particular rather then any other he should say in plain termes I am in nothing inferior to the very chiefest Apostles But besides all this Though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus meant that S. Peter was head of the Apostles not in our but in your sense and that S. Peter indeed was so yet still you are very farre from shewing that in the judgement of Optatus the Bishop of Rome was to be at all much lesse by divine right successor to S. Peter in this his Headship Authority For what incōgruity is there if we say that he might succeed S. Peter in that part of his care the government of that particular Church as sure he did even while S. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in his government of the Church Vniversall Especially seeing S. Peter and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundations of the
is from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of Peter And therefore D. Potter need not to be so hot with us because we say and write that the Church of Rome in that sense as she is the Mother Church of all others and with which all the rest agree is truly called the Catholique Church S. Hierome writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter I know that the Church is built upon that Rock Whosoever shall eat the Lambe out of this house he is prophane If any shall not be in the Arke of Noe he shall perish in the time of the deluge Whosoever doth not gather with thee doth scatter that is he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist And elsewhere Which doth he call his faith That of the Roman Church Or that which is contained in the Bookes of Origen If he answer the Roman then we are Catholiques who have translated nothing of the error of Origen And yet farther Know thou that the Roman faith commended by the voice of the Apostle doth not receive these delusions though an Angell should denounce otherwise then it hath once been preached S Ambrose recounting how his Brother Satyrus inquiring for a Church wherein to give thankes for his delivery from shipwrack saith he called unto him the Bishop neither did he esteeme any favour to be true except that of the true faith and he asked of him whether he agreed with the Catholique Bishops that is with the Roman Church And having understood that he was a Schismatique that is separated from the Roman Church he abstained from communicating with him Where we see the priviledge of the Roman Church confirmed both by word and deed by doctrine and practice And the same Saint saith of the Roman Church From thence the Rights of Venerable Communion doe flow to all S. Cyprian saith They are bold to saile to the Chaire of Peter and to the principall Church from whence Priestly Vnity hath sprung Neither doe they consider that they are Romans whose faith was commended by the preaching of the Apostle to whom falshood cannot have accesse Where we see this holy Father joynes together the principall Church and the Chaire of Peter and affirmeth that falsehood not only hath not had but cannot have accesse to that Sea And elsewhere Thou wrotest that I should send a Coppy of the same letters to Cornelius our Collegue that laying aside all solicitude he might now be assured that thou didst Communicate with him that is with the Catholique Church What think you M. Doctor of these words Is it so strange a thing to take for one and the same thing to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to communicate with the Catholique Church S. Ireneus saith Because it were long to number the successions of all Churches we declaring the Tradition and faith preached to men and comming to us by Tradition of the most great most ancient and most known Church founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul which Tradition it hath from the Apostles comming to us by succession of Bishops we confound all those who any way either by evill complacence of theÌ„selves or vain glory or by blindnes or ill Opinion doe gather otherwise thâ— they ought For to this Church for a more powerfull Principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithfull people of what place soever in which Roman Ch. the Tradition which is from the Apostles hath alwayes been conserved from those who are every where S. Augustine saith It grieves us to see you so to lie cut off Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter and consider in that order of Fathers who succeeded to whom She is the Rock which the proud Gates of Hell doe not overcome And in another place speaking of Caecilianus he saith He might contemne the conspiring multitude of his Enemies because he knew himselfe to be vnited by Communicatory letters both to the Roman Church in which the Principality of the Sea Apostolique did alwayes florish and to other Countries from whence the Gospell came first into Africa Ancient Tertullian saith If thou be neere Italy thou hast Rome whose Authority is neere at hand to us a happy Church into which the Apostles haue powred all Doctrine together with their blood S. Basill in a letter to the Bishop of Rome â—aith In very deed that which was given by our Lord to thy Piety is worthy of that most excellent voice which proclaimed thee Blessed to wit that thou maist discern betwixt that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution mayest preach the Faith of our Ancestors Maximinianus Bishop of Constantinâ—ple about twelue hundred yeares agoe said All the bounds of the earth who haue sincerely acknowledged our Lord and Catholiques through the whole world professing the true Faith look upon the power of the Bishop of Rome as upon the sunne c. For the Creator of the world amongst all men of the world elected him he speaks of S. Peter to whom he granted the Chaire of Doctour to be principally possessed by a perpetuall right of Priviledge that whosoever is desirous to know any Divine and profound thing may hauâ— recourse to the Oracle and Doctrine of this instruction Iohn Patriarck of Constantinople more then eleven hundred yeares agoe in an Epistle to Pope Hormisda writeth thus Because the beginning of salvation is to conserue the rule of right Faith and in no wise to swarue from the tradition of our fore-Fathers because the words of our Lord cannot faile saying Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church the proofes of deeds haue made good those words because in the Sea Apostolicall the Catholique Religion is alwaies conserved inviolable And again We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred Mysteries the names of them who are excluded from the Communion of the Catholique Church that is to say who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique Many other Authorities of the ancient Fathers might be produced to this purpose but these may serue to shew that both the Latin and Greek Fathers held for a Note of being a Catholique or an Heretique to haue been united or divided from the Sea of Rome And I haue purposely alleaged only such Authorities of Fathers as speak of the privileges of the Sea of Rome as of things permanent and depending on our Saviours promise to S Peter from which a generall rule and ground ought to be taken for all Ages because Heaven and Earth shall passe but the word of our Lord shall remain for ever So that I here conclude that seeing it is manifest that Luther and his followers divided themselues from the Sea of Rome they beare the inseparable Mark of Heresie 20 And though my meaning be not to treat the point of
Ordination or Succession in the Protestants Church because the Fathers alleaged in the last reason assigne Succession as one mark of the true Church I must not omit to say that according to the grounds of Protestants themselves they can neither pretend personall Succession of Bishops nor Succession of doctrine For whereas Succession of Bishops signifies a never-interrupted line of Persons endued with an indelible Quality which Divines call a Character which cannot be taken away by deposition degradation or other meanes whatsoever and endued also with Iurisdiction and Authority to teach to preach to govern the Church by lawes precepts censures c. Protestants cannot pretend Succession in either of these For besides that there was never Protestant Bishop before Luther and that there can be no continuance of Succession where there was no beginning to succeed they commonly acknowledge no Character and consequently must affirme that when their pretended Bishops or Priests are deprived of Iurisdiction or degraded they remain meer lay Persons as before their Ordination fulfilling what Tertullian objects as a mark of Heresie To â—ay a Priest to morrow a Lay-man For if here be no immoveable Character their power of Order must consist only in Iurisdiction and authoritie or in a kinde of morall deputation to some function which therefore may be taken away by the same power by which it was given Neither can they pretend Succession in Authority or Iurisdiction For all the Authority or Iurisdiction which they had was conferred by the Church of Rome that is by the Pope Because the whole Church collectively doth not meet to ordain Bishops or Priests or to giue them Authority But according to their own doctrine they believe that the Pope neither hath or ought to haue any Iurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiassicall or Spirituall within this Realme which they sweare even when they are ordained Bishops Priests and Deacons How then can the Pope giue Iurisdiction where they sweare he neither hath nor OVGHT to haue any Or if yet he had how could they without Schisme withdraw themselves from his obedience Besides the Roman Church never gaue them Authority to oppose Her by whom it was given But grant their first Bishops had such Authority from the Church of Rome after the decease of those men who gaue Authority to their pretended Successours The Primate of England But from whom had he such Authority And after his decease who shall confer Authority upon his Successours The temporall Magistrate King Henry neither a Catholique nor a Protestant King Edward a Child Queen Elizabeth a Woman An Infant of one houres Age is true King in case of his Predecessours decease But shall your Church lye fallow till that Infant-King and green Head of the Church come to yeares of discretion Doe your Bishops your Hierarchy your Succession your Sacraments your being or not being Heretiques for want of Succession depend on this new-found Supremacy-doctrine brought in by such a man meerly upon base occasions and for shameful ends impugned by Calvin and his followers derided by the Christian world and even by chiefe Protestants as D. Andrewes Wotton c. not held for any necessary point of faith And from whoÌ„ I pray you had Bishops their Authority when there were no Christian Kings Must the Greeke Patriarchs receiue spirituall Iurisdiction from the Greek Turk Did the Pope by the Baptisme of Princes loose the spirituall Power he formerly had of conferring spirituall Iurisdiction upon Bishops Hath the temporall Magistrate authority to preach to assoile from sinnes to inflict excommunications and other Censures Why hath he not Power to excommunicate as well as to dispense in Irregularity as our late Soveraign Lord King Iames either dispensed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury or else gaue commission to some Bishops to doe it and since they were subject to their Primate and not he to them it is cleer that they had no Power to dispense with him but that power must proceed from the Prince as Superiour to them all and head of the Protestants Church in England If he haue no such authority how can he giue to others what himselfe hath not Your Ordination or Consecration of Bishops and Priests imprinting no Character can only consist in giving a Power Authority Iurisdiction or as I said before some kind of Deputation to exercise Episcopall or Priestly functions If then the temporall Magistrate conferres this Power c. he can nay he cannot chuse but Ordain and consecrate Bishops Priests as often as he confers Authority or Iurisdiction and your Bishops as soone as they are designed confirmed by the King must ip so facto be Ordained and Consecrated by him without intervention of Bishops or Matter and Form of Ordination Which absurdities you will bee more unwilling to grant then well able to avoid if you will be true to your own doctrines The Pope from whom originally you must beg your Succession of Bishops never received nor will nor can acknowledge to receiue any Spiriâ—uall Iurisdiction from any Temporall Prince and therefore if Iurisdiction must be derived from Princes he hath none at all and yet either you must acknowledge that hee hath true spirituall Iurisdiction or that yourselves can receiue none from him 21 Moreover this new Reformation or Reformed Church of Protestants will by them be pretended to be Catholique or Vniversall and not confined to England alone as the Sect of the Donatists was to Africa and therefore it must comprehend all the Reformed Churches in Germany Holland Scotland France c. In which number they of Germany Holland and France are not governed by Bishops nor regard any personall succession unlesse of such fat-benefiâ—ed Bishops as Nicolaus Amsfordius who was consecrated by Luther though Luther himselfe was never Bishop as witnesseth Dresserus And though Scotland hath of late admitted some Bishops I much doubt whether they hold them to be necessary or of divine Institution and so their enforced admitting of them doth not so much furnish that kingdome with personall Succession of Bishops as it doth convince them to want Succession of Doctrine since in this their neglect of Bishops they disagree both from the milder Protestants of England and the true Catholique Church And by this want of a continued personall Succession of Bishops they retaine the note of Schisme and Heresy So that the Church of Protestants must either not be Vniversall as being confined to England Or if you will needs comprehend all those Churches which want succession you must confesse that your Church doth not only communicate with Schismaticall and Hereticall Churches but is also compounded of such Churches and your selves cannot avoid the note of Schismatiques or Heretiques if it were but for participating with such hereticall Churches For it is impossible to retain Communion with the true Catholique Church and yet agree with them who are divided from her by Schisme or Heresy because that were to affirme that for the
such Authorities as these and think you selves at liberty from them and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you and Children when they are against you Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunall of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleaged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that farre the greater part of them nay all of them that are any way considerable fall short of your purpose 23 S. Hierome you say writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus and this will much weaken the Authority with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters Consider againe that he saies only that he was then in Communion with the Chaire of Peter Nott hat he alwayes would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elswhere which shall be produced hereafter He saies that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but not that only Nor that alwayes Nay his judgment as shall appeare is expresse to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we meane to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must bee conceived as intended by him of that Bishop and Sea of Rome at that present time and in the present State and in respect of that doctrine which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceiu'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgments in matters of faith to the judgment of the Bishop Church of Rome how came it to passe that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall upō the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon upon the Authority of the Roman How comes it to passe that he dissented from the Authority of that Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament For if you say that the Church then consented with S. Hierome I feare you will loose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoyding this runne into a greater danger of being forc'd to confesse the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible that he should ever beleeue that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could haue been wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia and brought after two years banishment to subscribe Heresie Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday thirteen hundred years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather then the dis-interessed time-fellowes or immediate Successors of Liberius himselfe yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty as once to question whether S. Hierome thought so And if this cannot be denyed I demand then if he had lived in Liberius his time could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus would he have said to him I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon this Rock Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth Would he then have said the Roman faith and the Catholique were the same or that the Roman faith received no delusions no not from an Angell I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own beleif and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he streyned too high only of Damasus and never conceiv'd that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors 24 The same Answer I make to the first place of S. Ambrose viz. that no more can be certainly concluded from it but that the Catholique Bishops and the Roman Church were then at unity so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetuall and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops but he must agree with the Roman Church this he saies not nor gives you any ground to conclude from him Athanasius when he was excommunicated by Liberius agreed very ill with the Roman Church and yet you will not gainsay but he agreed well enough with the Catholique Bishops The second I am uncertain what the sense of it is and what truth is in it but most certain that it makes nothing to your present purpose For it neither affirmes nor imports that separation from the Roman Church is a certain marke of Heresy For the Rights of Communion whatsoever it signifies might be said to flow from it if that Church were by Ecclesiasticall Law the head of all other Churches But unlesse it were made so by divine Authority and that absolutely Separation from it could not be a marke of Heresy 25 For S. Cyprian all the world knowes that he resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Re. baptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which excōmunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinall Perron magisterially and without all colour of proofe affirme the contrary and Cyprian in particular so farre cast off as for it to be pronounc'd by Stephen a false Christ. Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were cōmanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. Iohn forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holdes still his former opinion though out of respect to the Churches peace he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise then he held yet he conceived Stephen his adherents to hold a pernitious error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversatiō in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so farre was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so in submitting to the judgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that
no other Bishop but our Lord Iesus only had power to judge with authority of his judgement and as plainly intimates that Stephen for usurping such a power and making himselfe a judge over Bishops was little better then a Tyrant and as heavily almost he censures him and peremptorily opposes him as obstinate in error in that very place where he delivers that famous saying How can he have God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother little doubting it seemes but a man might have the Church for his Mother who stood in opposition to the Church of Rome and farre 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 separation from S. Peters Chaire was a marke I mean a certain marke either of Schisme or Heresy If after all this you will catch at a phrase or a complement of S. Cyprians and with that hope to perswade Protestants who know this story as well as their own name that S. Cyprian did believe that falsehood could not have accesse to the Roman Church and that opposition to it was the brand of an Heretique may we not well expect that you will the next time you write vouch Luther Caluin also for Abettors of this Phancy and make us poore men believe not only as you say that we have no Metaphysicks but that we have no sense And when you have done so it will be no great difficulty for you to assure us that we read no such thing in Bellarmine as that Cyprian was alwaies accounted in the number of Catholiques nor in Canisius that he was a most excellent Doctor and a most glorious Martyr nor in your Calendar that he is a Saint and a Martyr but that all these are deceptions of our sight and that you ever esteemed him a very Schismatique and an Heretique as having on him the Marke of the Beast opposition to the chaire of Peter Nay that he what ever he pretended knew and believed himselfe to be so in as much as he knew as you pretend and esteemed this opposition to be the Marke of Heresy and knew himselfe to stand and stand out in such an opposition 26 But we need not seeke so farre for matter to refute the vanity of this pretence Let the reader but peruse this very Epistle out of which this sentence is alleaged and he shall need no farther satisfaction against it For he shall finde first that you have helped the dice a little with a false or at least with a very bold and streined Translation for S. Cyprian saith not to whom falshood cannot have accesse by which many of your favourable Readers I doubt understood that Cyprian had exempted that Church from a possibility of error but to whom perfidiousnesse cannot have accesse meaning by perfidiousnesse in the abstract according to a common figure of speech those perfidious Schismatiques whom he there complaines of and of these by a Rhetoricall insinuation he saies that with such good Christians as the Romans were it was not possible they should finde favourable entertainment Not that he conceived it any way impossible they should doe so for the very writing this Epistle and many passages in it plainly shew the contrary But because he was confident or at least would seeme to be confident they never would and so by his good opinion and confidence in the Romans lay an obligation upon them to doe as he presum'd they would doe as also in the end of his Epistle he saies even of the people of the Church of Rome that being defended by the providence of their Bishop nay by their own Vigilance sufficiently guarded they could not be taken nor deceived with the poysons of Heretiques Not that indeed he thought either this or the former any way impossible For to what purpose but for prevention hereof did he write this long and accurate and vehement Epistle to Cornelius which sure had been most vainly done to prevent that which he knew or believed impossible Or how can this consist with his taking notice in the begining of it that Cornelius was somewhat moved and wrought upon by the attempts of his Adversaries with his reprehending him for being so and with his vehement exhorting him to courage and constancy or with his request to him in the conclusion of his Epistle that it should be read publiquely to the whole Clergy and Laity of Rome to the intent that if any contagion of their poisoned speech and pestiferous semination had crept in amongst them it might be wholly taken away from the eares and the hearts of the Brethren and that the entire and syncere charity of good men might be purged from all drosse of hereticall detraction Or lastly with his vehement perswasions to them to decline for the time to come and resolutely avoid their word and conference because their speech crept as a canker as the Apostle saith because evill communication would corrupt good natures because wicked men carry perdition in their mouthes and hide fire in their lips All which had been but vain and ridiculous pagentry had he verily believed the Romans such inaccessible Forts such immoveable Rocks as the former sentences would seeme to import if we will expound them rigidly and strictly according to the exigence of the words not allow him who was a professed Maister of the Art to have used here a little Rhetorique and to say That could not be whereof he had no absolute certainty but that it might be but only had or would seem to have a great confidence that it never would be ut fides habita fidem obligaret that he professing to be confident of the Romans might lay an obligation upon them to doe as he promist himselfe they would doe For as for joyning the Principall Church and the Chair of Peter how that will serve for your present purpose of proving separation from the Roman Church a marke of Heresy I suppose it is hard to understand Nor indeed how it will advantage you in any other designe against us who doe not altogether deny but that the Church of Rome might be called the Chaire of Peter in regard he is said to have preached the Gospell there and the principall Church because the City was the Principall and Imperiall City which Prerogative of the City if we believe the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon was the ground and occasion why the Fathers of former time I pray observe conferred upon this Church this Prerogative above other Churches 27 And as farre am I from understanding how you can collect from the other sentence that to communicate with the Church and Pope of Rome and to communicate with the Catholique Church is alwaies for that is your Assumpt one and the same thing S. Cyprian speaks not of the Church of Rome at all but of the Bishop only who when he doth communicate with the Catholique Church as Cornelius at
nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius saies he saies out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it cast a blurre upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius saies any thing which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops that they advised Victor to keepe those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharpely reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proofe of it The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polyerates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Iudge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was Vniversall Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conforme themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or signe of Power Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls and by Inferiors upon Superiors if the equalls or inferiors thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confesse that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon that all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should doe because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the adjacent Churches for so he expounds himselfe in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithfull round about should resort With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the RomaÌ„ how could he all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinall Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily then truly that all Cardinall Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two houres Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice which proceeding there he justly condemnes of evident injustice His words are For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words and the lively actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Iudges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imploied against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectuall then forraine and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he paralels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others not Bishops of Rome both they saith hee speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and wee also among our selves retaine it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to doe so l If the Popes proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why doe you accouâ—t them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councells did no way shew
his sword to his Prefect with this commission that if he governed well he should use it for him if ill against him Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to preach against her corruptions in manners And if so why not against her errors in doctrine if she had any Whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole Gospell of Christ and consequently against her doctrine if it should contradict any part of the Gospell of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawfull in the Church of Rome for any Lay man or woman that has ability to perswade others by word or by writing from error and unto truth And why this liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other commission or vocation then that of a Christian to doe a work of charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without an unnecessary disturbance of order to perswade men out of a false unto a true way of eternall happinesse Especially the Apostle having assur'd us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soule from death and shall hide a multitude of sinnes Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain Others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not consecrate a Metropolitan of England as well as the Cardinalls doe the Pope Whether the King or Queen of England or they that have the government in their hands in the minority of the Prince may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated against whom there is no Canonicall exception Whether the Doctrine that the King is supream head of the Church of England as the Kings of Iudah the first Christian Emperors were of the Iewish and Christian Church be any new found doctrine Whether it may not be true that Bishops being made Bishops have their authority immediatly from Christ though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings authority as well as you say the Pope being Pope has authority immediatly from Christ and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the authority of the Cardinalls Whether you doe well to suppose that Christian Kings have no more authority in ordering the affaires of the Church then the great Turk or the Pagan Emperors Whether the King may not give authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdome and yet not be capable of doing it himselfe as well as a Bishop may give authority to a Physitian to practise Physick in his Diocesse which the Bishop cannot doe himselfe Whether if Ner◠the Emperour would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to preach the Gospell of Christ and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome whether they would have question'd his Authority to doe so Whether there were any Law of God or man that prohibited K. IAMES to give Commission to Bishops nay to lay his injunction upon them to doe any thing that is lawfull Whether a casuall irregularity may not be lawfully dispenc'd with Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incurre any be indispensable And if not who is he or who are they whom the Pope is so subject unto that they may dispense with him Whether that be certain which you take for granted That your Ordination imprints a character and ours doth not Whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops and be derived unto them not from the King but God and yet the King have authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person whom he shall commend unto them As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of architecture and had it immediatly by infusion from God himselfe yet if they were the Kings subjects he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use or a fortresse for his service Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himselfe yet I hope you will not deny him power to command any of his subjects that has this power to ordaine any fit person Priest whom he shall desire to be ordained Whether it doe not follow that whensoever the King commands an house to be built a message to be delivered or a murtherer to be executed that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect messenger or executioner As well as that they are ipsofacto ordain'd and consecrated who by the Kings authority are commended to the Bishops to be ordained and consecrated Especially seeing the King will not deny but that these Bishops may refuse to doe what he requires to be done lawfully if the person be unworthy if worthy unlawfully indeed but yet de facto they may refuse and in case they should doe so whether justly or unjustly neither the King himselfe nor any body else would esteeme the person Bishop upon the Kings designation Whether many Popes though they were not consecrated Bishops by any temporall Prince yet might not or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercise their Episcopall function in this or that place And whether the Emperors had not authority upon their desert to deprive them of their jurisdiction by imprisonment or banishment Whether Protestants doe indeed pretend that their Reformation is universall Whether in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa you doe not forget your selfe and contradict what you said above in § 17. of this Chapter where you tell us they had some of their Sect residing in Rome Whether it be certain that none can admit of Bishops willingly but those that hold them of divine institution Whether they may not be willing to have them conceiving that way of government the best though not absolutely necessary Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops not to be of divine institution be Schismaticall and Hereticall for thinking so Whether your forme of ordaining Bishops and Priests be essentiall to the constitution of a true Church Whether the formes of the Church of England differ essentially from your formes Whether in saying that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church wherein I have proved it plainly impossible that any man should be so much as morally certain either of his own Priesthood or any other mans Lastly whether any one kind of these externall formes and orders and government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may not be diverse in diverse places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives
to doe it without all bitternesse or gall of invective words both for as much as may import either Protestants in generall or D. Potters person in particular unles for example he will call it bitternesse for me to terme a grosse impertinency a sleight or a corruption by those very names without which I doe not know how to expresse the things and yet therein I can truly affirme that I have studied how to deliver them in the most moderate way to the end I might give as little offence as possibly I could without betraying the Cause And if any unfit phrase may peradventure have escaped my pen as I hope none hath it was beside and against my intention though I must needs professe that D. Potter gives so many and so just occasions of being round with him as that perhaps some will judge me to have been rather remisse then moderate But since in the very title of my Reply I professe to maintaine Charity I conceive that the excesse will be more excusable amongst all kinds of men if it fall to be in mildnesse then if it had appeared in too much zeale And if D. Potter have a mind to charge me with ignorance or any thing of that nature I can and will ease him of that labour by acknowledging in my selfe as many and more personall defects then he can heap upon me Truth only and syncerity I so much valew and professe as that he shall never be able to prove the contrary in any one least passage or particle against me 9. In the third and last place I have thought fit to expresse my selfe thus If D. Potter or any other resolve to answere my Reply I desire that he will observe some things which may tend to his owne reputation the saving of my unnecessary paines and especially to the greater advantage of truth I wish then that he would be carefull to consider wherein the point of every difficulty consists and not impertinently to shoot at Rovers and affectedly mistake one thing for another As for example to what purpose for as much as concernes the question betweene D. Potter and Charity Mistaken doth he so often and seriously labour to proue that faith is not resolved into the authority of the Church as into the formall Obiect and Motive thereof Or that all points of Faith are contained in Scripture Or that the Church cannot make new Articles of Faith Or that the Church of Rome as it signifies that particular Church or Diocesse is not all one with the universall Church Or that the Pope as a private Doctor may erre With many other such points as will easily appeare in their proper places It will also be necessary for him not to put certaine Doctrines upon us from which he knowes we disclaime as much as himselfe 10 I must in like manner intreat him not to recite my reasons and discourses by halfes but to set them down faithfully and entirely for as much as in very deed concernes the whole substance of the thing in question because the want sometime of one word may chance to make void or lessen the force of the whole argument And I am the more solicitous about giving this particular caveat because I finde how ill he hath complied with the promise which he made in his Preface to the Reader not to omit without answere any one thing of moment in all the discourse of Charity Mistaken Neither will this course be a cause that his Reioynder grow too large but it will be occasion of brevity to him and free me also from the paines of setting downe all the words which he omits and himselfe of demonstrating that what he omitted was not materiall Nay I will assure him that if he keep himselfe to the point of every difficulty and not weary the Reader and overcharge his margent with unnecessary quotations of Authors in Greek and Latin and sometime also in Italian and French together with proverbs sentences of Poets and such grammaticall stuffe nor affect to cite a multitude of our Catholique Schoole divines to no purpose at all his Book will not exceed a competent size nor will any man in reason be offended with that length which is regulated by necessity Againe before he come to set downe his answere or propose his Arguments let him consider very well what may be replied and whether his own objections may not be retorted against himselfe as the Reader will perceiue to haue hapned often to his disadvantage in my Reply against him But especially I expect and Truth it selfe exacts at his hand that he speak cleerly and distinctly and not seek to walk in darknesse so to delude and deceiue his Reader now saying and then denying and alwaies speaking with such ambiguity as that his greatest care may seeme to consist in a certaine art to find a shift as his occasions might chance either now or heereafter to require and as he might fall out to be urged by diversity of severall arguments And to the end it may appear that I deale plainely as I would haue him also doe I desire that he declare himselfe concerning these points 11 First whether our Saviour Christ haue not alwaies had and be not ever to haue a visible true Church on earth and whether the contrary doctrine be not a damnable Heresy 12 Secondly what visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman Church and agreeing with the pretended Church of Protestants 13 Thirdly Since he will be forced to grant that there cā be assigned no visible true Church of Christ distinct from the Church of Rome and such Churches as agreed with her when Luther first appeared whether it doe not follow that shee hath not erred fundamentally because every such errour destroies the nature and being of the Church and so our Saviour Christ should haue had no visible Church on earth 14 Fourthly if the Roman Church did not fall into any fundamentall errour let him tell us how it can be damnable to liue in her Communion or to maintaine errours which are knowne and confessed not to be fundamentall to damnable 15 Fiftly if her Errours were not damnable nor did exclude salvation how can they be excused from Schisme who forsooke her Communion upon pretence of errours which were not damnable 16 Sixtly if D. Potter haue a minde to say that her Errours are damnable or fundamentall let him doe us so much charity as to tell us in particular what those fundamentall errours be But he must still remember and my selfe must be excused for repeating it that if he say the Roman Church erred fundamentally he will not be able to shew that Christ our Lord had any visible Church on earth when Luther appeared and let him tell us how Protestants had or can haue any Church which was universall and extended her selfe to all ages if once he grant that the Roman Church ceased to be the true Church of Christ and consequently how they can hope
heare examine and determine all controversies of faith and so they may be and are Iudges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrine they constitute another Iudge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26 Lastly 〈◊〉 D. Potter whether this Assertion Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in saith be a fundamentall point of faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a fundamentall point For he will haue against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it is impossible to knowe what Bookes be Scripture which yet to Protestants is the most necessary and chiefe point of all other D. Covell expresly saith Doubtlesse it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome if they goe no further as some of them doe not hee should haue said as none of them doe to affirme that the Scriptures are holy divine in themselves but so esteemed by us for the authority of the Church He will likewise oppose himselfe to those his Brethren who grant that Controversies cannot be ended without some externall living authority as we noted before Besides how can it be in us a fundamentall errour to say the Scripture alone is not Iudge of Controversies seeing notwithstanding this our beliefe wee use for interpreting of Scripture all the meanes which they prescribe as Prayer Conferring of places Consulting the Originals c and to these adde the Instruction and Authority of Gods Church which even by has confession cannot erre damnaâ—ly and may afford us more help then can be expected from the industry learning or wit of any private person and finally D. Potter grants that the Church of Rome doth not maintain any fundamentall errour against faith and consequently he cannot affirme that our doctrine in this present Controversie is damnable If he answer that their Tenet about the Scriptures being the only Iudge of Controversies is not a fundamentall point of faith then as he â—eacheth that the universall Church may erre in points not fundamentall so I hope he will nâ—t deny but particular Churches and private men are much more obnoxious to errour in such points and in particular in this that Scripture alone is Iudge of Controversies And so the very principle upon which their whole faith is grounded remaines to them uncertaine and on the other side for the selfe same reason they are not certaine but that the Church is Iudge of Controversies which if she be then their case is lamentable who in generall deny her this authority in particular controversies oppose her definitions Besides among publique Conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the questions Whether the Church haue authority to determine controversies in faith And To interpret holy Scripture The answer to both is Affirmatiue 27 Since then the visible Church of Christ our Lord is that infallible Meanes whereby the revealed truth of Almighty God are conveyed to our understanding it followeth that to oppose her definitions is to resist God himselfe which blessed S. Augustine plainly affirmeth when speaking of the Controversy about Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques he saith Tâ—is is neither openly nor evidently read neither by you nor by me yet if there were any wise man of whom our Saviour had given testimony and that he should be consulted in this question we should make no doubt to performe what he should say least we might seem to gainsay not him so much as Christ by whose testimony he was recommended Now Christ beareth witnesse to his Church And a little after Whosoever refuseth to follow the practise of the Church doth resist our Saviour himselfe who by his testimony recommends the Church I conclude therefore with this argument Whosoever resisteth that meanes which infallibly proposeth to us Gods Word or Râ—velation commits a sinne which unrepented excludes salvation But whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church doth resist that meanes which infallibly proposeth Gods word or revelation to us Therefore whosoever resisteth Christs visible Church commits a sinne which unrepented excludes salvation Now what visible Church was extant when Luther began his pretended Reformation whetheâ— it were the Roman or Protestant Church and whether he and other Protestants doe not oppose that visible Church which was spread over the world before and in Luthers time is easy to be determined and importeth every one most seriously to ponder as a thing whereon eternall salvation dependeth And because our Adversaries doe here most insist upon the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and in particular teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall it will be necessary to examine the truth and weight of this evasion which shall be done in the next Chapter ANSVVER TO THE SECOND CHAPTER Concerning the meanes whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which must determine Controversies in Faith and Religion AD § 1. He that would usurpe an absolute lordship and tyranny over any people need not put himselfe to the trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disanulling the Lawes made to maintain the common liberty for he may frustrate their intent and compasse his own designe as well if he can get the power and authority to interpret them as he pleases and adde to them what he pleases and to have his interpretations and additions stand for Lawes if he can rule his people by his lawes and his Lawes by his Lawyers So the Church of Rome to establish her tyranny over mens consciences needed not either to abolish or corrupt the holy Scriptures the Pillars and supporters of Christian liberty which in regard of the numerous multitude of copies dispersed through all places translated into almost all languages guarded with all sollicitous care and industry had been an impossible attempt But the more expedite way and therefore more likely to be successefull was to gain the opinion and esteem of the publique and authoriz'd interpreter of them and the Authority of adding to them what doctrine she pleas'd under the title of Traditions or Definitions For by this meanes she might both serve her selfe of all those clauses of Scripture which might be drawen to cast a favourable countenance upon her ambitious pretences which in case the Scripture had been abolished shee could not have done and yet be secure enough of having either her power limited or her corruptions and abuses reformed by them this being once setled in the mindes of men that unwritten doctrines if proposed by her were to be receiv'd with equall reverence to those that were written and that the sense of Scripture was not that which seem'd to mens reason and understanding to be so but that which the Church of Rome should declare to be so seem'd it never so unreasonable and incongruous The matter being once thus ordered and the holy Scriptures being made in effect not your directors and Iudges no farther then you please but your
That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility and therefore not of yours What then by Reason That you say may deceiue in other things and why not in this How then will she assure us hereof By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still How it can proue it selfe to be infallibly true Neither can there be an end of the like multiplied Demands till we rest in somthing evident of it selfe which demonstrates to the world that this Church is infallible And seeing there is no such Rock for the Infallibility of this Church to be setled on it must of necessity like the Iland of Delos flote up and down for ever And yet upon this point according to Papists all other Controversies in faith depend 26 To they 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. § The summe and substance of the Ten next Paragraphs is this That it appeares by the Confessions of some Protestants and the Contentions of others that the Questions about the Canon of Scripture what it is and about the Various reading and Translations of it which is true and which not are not to bee determined by Scripture and therefore that all Controversies of Religion are not decidable by Scripture 27 To which I have already answered saying That when Scripture is affirm'd to be the rule by which all controversies of Religion are to be decided Those are to be excepted out of this generality which are concerning the Scripture it selfe For as that generall saying of Scripture He hath put all things under his feet is most true though yet S. Paul tels us That when it is said he hath put all things under him it is manifest he is excepted who did put all things under him So when we say that all controversies of Religion are decidable by the Scripture it is manifest to all but cavillers that we doe and must except from this generality those which are touching the Scripture it selfe Iust as a Merchant shewing a ship of his own may say all my substance is in this ship and yet never intend to deny that his ship is part of his substance nor yet to say that his ship is in it selfe Or as a man may say that a whole house is supported by the foundation and yet never mean to exclude the foundation from being a part of the house or to say that it is supported by it selfe Or as you your selves use to say that the Bishop of Rome is head of the whole Church and yet would think us but captious sophisters should we inferre from hence that either you made him no part of the whole or else made him head of himselfe Your negative conclusion therefore that these Questions touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture you needed not have cited any Authorities nor urged any reason to prove it it is evident of it selfe and I grant it without more adoe But your corollary from it which you would insinuate to your unwary reader that therefore they are to be decided by your or any visible Church is a meere inconsequence and very like his collection who because Pamphilus was not to have Glycerium for his wife presently concluded that he must have her as if there had been no more men in the world but Pamphilus and himselfe For so you as if there were nothing in the world capable of this office but the Scripture or the present Church having concluded against Scripture you conceive but too hastily that you have concluded for the Church But the truth is neither the one nor the other have any thing to doe with this matter For first the Question whether such or such a book be Canonicall Scripture though it may be decided negatively out of Scripture by shewing apparent and irreconcileable contradictions between it and some other book confessedly Canonicall yet affirmatively it cannot but only by the testimonies of the ancient Churches any book being to be received as undoubtedly Canonicall or to be doubted of as uncertain or rejected as Apocryphall according as it was received or doubted of or rejected by them Then for the Question of various readings which is the true it is in reason evident and confessed by your own Pope that there is no possible determination of it but only by comparison with ancient Copies And lastly for controversies about different translations of Scripture the learned have the same meanes to satisfy themselves in it as in the Questions which happen about the translation of any other Author that is skill in the language of the Originall and comparing translations with it In which way if there be no certainty I would know what certainty you have that your Doway old and Rhemish new Testament are true translations And then for the unlearned those on your side are subject to as much nay the very same uncertainty with those on ours Neither is there any reason imaginable why an ignorant English Protestant may not be as secure of the translation of our Church that it is free from errour if not absolutely yet in matters of moment as an ignorant English Papist can be of his Rhemist Testament or Doway Bible The best direction I can give them is to compare both together and where there is no reall difference as in the translation of controverted places I believe there is very little there to be confident that they are right where they differ there to be prudent in the choice of the guides they follow Which way of proceeding if it be subject to some possible errour yet is it the best that either we or you have and it is not required that we use any better then the best we have 28 You will say Dependance on your Churches infallibility is a better I answere it would be so if we could be infallibly certaine that your Church is infallible that is if it were either evident of it selfe and seen by its own light or could be reduc'd unto and setled upon some Principle that is so But seeing you your selves doe not so much as pretend to enforce us to the belief hereof by any proofes infallible and convincing but only to induce us to it by such as are by your confession only probable and principall motives certainly it will be to very little purpose to put off your uncertainty for the first turne and to fall upon it at the second to please your selves in building your house upon an imaginary Rock when you your selves see and confesse that this very Rock stands it selfe at the best but upō a frame of timber I answer secondly that this cannot be a better way because we are infallibly certain that your Church is not infallible and indeed hath not the reall prescription of this priviledge but only pleaseth her selfe with a false imagination and vaine presumption of it as I shall hereafter demonstrate by many unanswerable arguments 29 Now seeing I make no scruple or difficulty to grant the conclusion of this discourse
and Scripture and experience so you tell us out of M. Hooker to seek for the ending of them by submitting unto some Iudiciall sentence whereunto neither part may refuse to stand This is very true Neither should you need to persuade us to seek such a meanes of ending all our Controversies if we could tell where to finde it But this wee know that none is fit to pronounce for all the world a judiciall definitiue obliging sentence in Controversies of Religion but only such a Man or such a society of Men as is authoriz'd thereto by God And besides we are able to demonstrate that it hath not been the pleasure of God to giue to any Man or Society of Men any such authority And therefore though we wish heartily that all Controversies were ended as we doe that all sinne were abolisht yet we haue little hope of the one or the other till the World be ended And in the mean while think it best to content our selues with and to persuade others unto an Vnity of Charity and mutuall toleration seeing God hath authoriz'd no man to force all men to Vnity of Opinion Neither doe we think it fit to argue thus To us it seemes convenient there should be one Iudge of all Controversies for the whole world therefore God has appointed one But more modest and more reasonable to collect thus God hath appointed no such judge of Controversies therefore though it seemes to us convenient there should be one yet it is not so Or though it were convenient for us to haue one yet it hath pleased God for Reasons best known to himselfe not to allow us this convenience 86 D. Fields words which follow I confesse are somewhat more pressing and if he had been infallible and the words had not slipt unadvisedly from him they were the best Argument in your Book But yet it is evident out of his Book so acknowledg'd by some of your own That he never thought of any one company of Christians invested with such authority from God that all men were bound to receiue their Decrees without examination though they seem contrary to Scripture and Reason which the Church of Rome requires And therefore if he haue in his Preface strained too high in cōmendation of the subject he writes of as Writers very often doe in their Prefaces and Dedicatory Epistles what is that to us Besides by all the Societies of the World it is not impossible nor very improbable hee might meane all that are or haue been in the world and so include even the Primitiue Church and her Communion we shall embrace her Direction we shall follow her Iudgement we shall rest in if wee belieue the Scripture endeavour to finde the true sense of it and liue according to it 87 Ad 18. § That the true Interpretation of the Scripture ought to be receaved from the Church you need not prove for it is very easily granted by them who professe themselves very ready to receiue all Truths much more the true sense of Scripture not only from the Church but from any societie of men nay from any man whatsoever 88 That the Churches Interpretation of Scripture is alwaies true that is it which you would haue said and that in some sense may bee also admitted viz. if your speake of that Church which before you spake of in the 14. § that is of the Church of all Ages since the Apostles Vpon the Tradition of which Church you there told us We were to receiue the Scripture and to belieue it to bee the Word of God For there you teach us that our Faith of Scripture depends on a Principle which requires no other proofe And that such is Tradition which from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the Times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe commeth to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their Doctrine to be true Wherefore the Ancient Fathers avouch that wee must receiue the sacred Scripture upon the Tradition of this Church The Tradition then of this Church you say must teach us what is Scripture and we are willing to belieue it And now if you make it good unto us that the same Tradition down from the Apostles hath delivered from age to age and from hand to hand any interpretation of any Scripture we are ready to embrace that also But now if you will argue thus The Church in one sense tells us what is Scripture we belieue therefore if the Church taken in another sense tell us this or that is the meaning of the Scripture we are to belieue that also this is too transparent Sophistrie to take any but those that are willing to be taken 89 If there be any Traditiue Interpretation of Scripture produce it and proue it to be so and we embrace it But the Tradition of all ages is one thing and the authority of the present Church much more of the Roman Church which is but a Part and a corrupted Part of the Catholique Church is another And therefore though we are ready to receiue both Scripture and the sense of Scripture upon the authority of Originall Tradition yet we receiue neither the one nor the other upon the Authority of your Church 90 First for the Scripture how can wee receiue them upon the Authority of your Church who hold now those Books to be Canonicall which formerly you rejected from the Canon I instance in the Book of Macchabees and the Epistle to the Hebrews The first of these you held not to be Canonicall in S. Gregories time or else hee was no member of your Church for it is apparent He held otherwise The second you rejected from the Canon in S. Hieroms time as it is evident out of many places of his Works 91 If you say which is all you can say that Hierom spake this of the particular Roman Church not of the Roman Catholique Church I answer there was none such in his time None that was called so Secondly what he spake of the Roman Church must be true of all other Churches if your Doctrine of the necessity of the Conformity of all other Churches to that Church were then Catholique Doctrine Now then choose whether you will either that the particular Roman Church was not then beleived to be the Mistresse of all other Churches notwithstanding Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est omnes qui sunt undique fideles which Card. Perron and his Translatresse so often translates false Or if you say shee was you will runne into a greater inconvenience and be forced to say that all the Churches of that time rejected from the Canon the Epistle to the Hebrews together with the Roman Church And consequently that the Catholique Church may erre in rejecting from the Canon Scriptures truly Canonicall 92 Secondly How can we receive the Scripture upon the authority of the Roman
That the Church shall be infallibly guarded from giving any false sense of any Scripture and not infallibly assisted positively to give the true sense of all Scripture I put to you your own Question why should we believe the Holy Ghost will stay there Or why may we not as well think he will stay at the first thing that is in teaching the Church what Bookes be true Scripture For if the Holy Ghosts assistance be promised 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 such as the true senses of all Scripture would be Neither could he stay there but defend them irresistibly from all Vices Nor there neither but infuse into them irresistibly all Vertues for all these things would be much for the benefit of Christians If you say he cannot doe this without taking away their free will in living I say neither can he necessitate men to believe aright without taking away their freewill in believing and in professing their belief 97 To the place of S. Austine I answere That not the authority of the present Church much lesse of a Part of it as the Roman Church is was that which alone mov'd Saint Austine to believe the Gospell but the perpetuall Tradition of the Church of all Ages Which you your selfe have taught us to be the only Principle by which the Scripture is prov'd and which it selfe needs no proof and to which you have referred this very saying of S. Austine Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi c. p. 55. And in the next place which you cite out of his book De Vtil Cred. c. 14. he shewes that his motives to believe were Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity And seeing this Tradition this Consent this Antiquity did as fully and powerfully move him not to believe Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell the Christian Tradition being as full against Manichaeus as it was for the Gospell therefore he did well to conclude upon these grounds that he had as much reason to disbelieve Manichaeus as to believe the Gospell Now if you can truly say that the same Fame Celebrity Consent Antiquity that the same Vniversall and Originall Tradition lyes against Luther and Calvin as did against Manichaeus you may doe well to apply the Argument against them otherwise it will be to little purpose to substitute their names in steade of Manichaeus unlesse you can shew the thing agrees to them as well as him 98 If you say that S. Austin speakes here of the authority of the Present Church abstracting from consent with the Ancient and therefore you seeing you have the present Church on your side against Luther and Calvin as S. Austin against Manichaeus may urge the same words against them which S. Austin did against him 99 I answer First that it is a vaine presumption of yours that the Catholique Church is of your side Secondly that if S. Austine speake here of that present Church which moved him to believe the Gospel without consideration of the Antiquity of it its both Personall and Doctrinall succession from the Apostles His argument will be like a Buskin that will serve anylegge It will serve to keepe an Arrian or a Grecian from being a Roman Catholique as well as a Catholique from being an Arrian or a Grecian In as much as the Arrians and Grecians did pretend to the title of Catholiques and the Church as much as the Papists now doe If then you should haue come to an ancient Goth or Vandall whom the Arrians converted to Christianity and should haue mov'd him to your Religion might he not say the very same words to you as S. Austin to the Manichaeans I would not beleive the Gospell unlesse the authority of the Church did move me Them therefore whom I obeyed saying beleive the Gospell why should I not obey saying to me doe not beleive the Homoousians Choose what thou pleasest if thou shalt say beleive the Arrians they warne me not to give any credit to you If therefore I beleive them I cannot beleive thee If thou say doe not beleive the Arriās thou shalt not doe well to force me to the faith of the Homoousians because by the preaching of the Arrians I beleived the Gospell it selfe If you say you did well to beleive them commending the Gospell but you did not well to beleive them discommending the Homoousians Doest thou think me so very foolish that without any reason at all I should beleive what thou wilt and not beleive what thou wilt not It were easie to put these words into the mouth of a Grecian Abyssine Georgian or any other of any Religion And I pray bethinke your selves what you would say to such a one in such a case and imagine that we say the very same to you 100 Whereas you aske Whether Protestants doe not perfectly resemble those men to whom S. Austine spake when they will have men to believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning Luther I demand againe whether you be well in your wits to say that Protestants would have men believe the Roman Church delivering Scripture whereas they accuse her to deliver many bookes for Scripture which are not so and doe not bid men to receive any book which she delivers for that reason because she delivers it And if you meant only Protestants will have men to believe some bookes to be Scripture which the Roman Church delivers for such may not we then aske as you doe Doe not Papists perfectly resemble these men which will have men believe the Church of England delivering Scripture but not to believe her condemning the Church of Rome 101 And whereas you say S. Austine may seeme to have spoken Prophetically against Protestants when he said Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of them before all others by whose Authority I was moved to believe that Christ Commanded any good thing I answer Vntill you can shew that Protestants believe that Christ commanded any good thing that is That they believe the truth of Christian Religion upon the Authority of the Church of Rome this place must be wholly impertinent to your purpose which is to make Protestants believe your Church to be the infallible expounder of Scriptures and judge of Controversies nay rather is it not directly against your purpose For why may not a member of the Church of England who received his baptisme education and Faith from the Ministery of this Church say just so to you as S. Austine here to the Manichees Why should I not most diligently inquire what Christ commanded of them the Church of England before all others by whose Authority I was mov'd to believe that Christ commanded any good thing Can you F. or K. or whosoever you are better declare to me what he said whom I would not have thought to have been or to be if the belief
doubtfull whether they be spoken of the Church of Christ if they be whether they mean as you pretend You say the Church saies so which is infallible Yea but that is the Question and therefore not to be begg'd but proved Neither is it so evident as to need no proofe otherwise why brought you this Text to proue it Nor is it of such a strange quality aboue all other Propositions as to bee able to proue it selfe What then remaines but that you say Reasons drawn out of the Circumstances of the Text will evince that this is the sense of it Perhaps they will But Reasons cannot convince mee unlesse I judge of them by my Reason and for every man or woman to relye on that in the choice of their Religion and in the interpreting of Scripture you say is a horrible absurditie and therefore must neither make use of your own in this matter nor desire mee to make use of it 119 But Vniversall Tradition you say and so doe I too is of it selfe credible and that has in all ages taught the Churches infallibility with full consent If it haue I am ready to belieue it But that it has I hope you would not haue me take upon your word for that were to build my selfe upon the Church and the Church upon You. Let then the Tradition appeare for a secret Tradition is somewhat like a silent Thunder You will perhaps produce for the confirmation of it some sayings of some Fathers who in every Age taught this Doctrine as Gualterius in his Chronologie undertakes to doe but with so ill successe that I heard an able Man of your Religion professe that in the first three Centuries there was not one Authority pertinent but how will you warrant that none of them teach the contrary Again how shall I be assured that the places haue indeed this sense in them Seeing there is not one Father for 500. yeares after Christ that does say in plain termes The Church of Rome is infallible What shall wee belieue your Church that this is their meaning But this will be again to goe into the Circle which made us giddy before To proue the Church Infallible because Tradition saies so Tradition to say so because the Fathers say so The Fathers to say so because the Church saies so which is infallible Yea but reason will shew this to be the meaning of them Yes if we may use our Reason and rely upon it Otherwise as light shewes nothing to the blinde or to him that uses not his eyes so reason cannot proue any thing to him that either has not or uses not his reason to judge of them 120 Thus you haue excluded your selfe from all proofe of your Churches infallibility from Scripture or Tradition And if you flye lastly to Reason it selfe for succour may not it justly say to you as Iephte said to his Brethren Yee haue cast me out and banished me and doe you now come to me for succour But if there be no certainty in Reason how shall I be assured of the certainty of those which you alleage for this purpose Either I may judge of them or not if not why doe you propose them If I may why doe you say I may not and make it such a monstrous absurdity That men in the choyce of their Religion should make use of their Reason which yet without all question none but unreasonable men can deny to haue been the chiefest ende why Reason was given them 122 Ad § 22. An Heretique he is saith D. Potter who opposeth any truth which to be a divine revelation he is convinced in conscience by any meanes whatsoever Be it by a Preacher or Lay-man be it by reading Scripture or hearing them read And from hence you infer that he makes all these safe propounders of Faith A most strange and illogicall deduction For may not a private man by evident reason convince another man that such or such a Doctrine is divine revelation and yet though he be a true propounder in this point yet propound another thing falsely and without proofe and consequently not be a safe propounder in every point Your Preachers in their Sermons do they not propose to men divine Revelations and doe they not sometimes convince men in conscience by evident proofe from Scripture that the things they speak are Divine revelations And whosoever being thus convinc'd should oppose this Divine revelation should hee not be an Heretique according to your own grounds for calling Gods own Truth into question And would you think your selfe well dealt with if I should collect from hence that you make every Preacher a safe that is an infallible Propounder of Faith Be the meanes of Proposall what it will sufficient or insufficient worthy of credit or not worthy though it were if it were possible the barking of a Dog or the chirping of a Bird or were it the discourse of the Divell himselfe yet if I be I will not say convinc'd but persuaded though falsly that it is a Divine revelation and shall deny to belieue it I shall be a formall though not a materiall Heretique For he that believes though falsly any thing to be Divine revelation yet will not believe it to be true must of necessity believe God to be false which according to your own Doctrine is the formality of an Heretique 123 And how it can be any way advantagious to Civill government that men without warrant from God should usurpe a tyranny over other mens consciences and prescribe unto them without reason and sometimes against reason what they shall believe you must shew us plainer if you desire we should believe For to say Verily I doe not see but that it must be so is no good demonstration For whereas you say that a man may be a passionate seditious creature from whence you would have us inferre that he may make use of his interpretation to satisfie his passion and raise sedition There were some colour in this consequence if we as you doe made private men infallible interpreters for others for then indeed they might lead Disciples after them and use them as instruments for their vile purposes But when we say they can only interpret for themselves what harme they can doe by their passionate or seditious interpretations but only endanger both their temporall and eternall happinesse I cannot imagine For though we deny the Pope or Church of Rome to be an infallible Iudge yet we doe not deny but that there are Iudges which may proceed with certainty enough against all seditious Persons such as draw men to disobedience either against Church or State as well as against Rebells and Traytors and Theeves and Murderers 124 Ad § 23. The next § in the begining argues thus For many ages there was no Scripture in the World and for many more there was none in many places of the world yet men wanted not then and then some certain direction what to believe
those who goe out to be Schismatiques but not those from whom they depart That to forsake the Chaire of Peter is Schisme yea that it is Schisme to erect a Chaire which had no origen or as it were predecessouâ— before it self That to continue in a division begun by others is to be Heires of Schismatiques and lastly that to depart from the Communion of a particular Church as that of S. â—yprian was is sufficient to make a man incur the guilt of Schisme and consequently that although Protestants who deny the Pope to be supreme Head of the Church doe think by that Heresy to cleere Luther from Schisme in disobeying the Pope Yet that wâ—ll not serve to free him from Schisme as it importeth a division from the obedience or Communion of the particular Bishop Diocesse Church and Country where he lived 36 But it is not the Heresy of Protestants or any other Sectaries that can deprive S. Peter and his Successours of the authority which Christ our Lord conferred upon them over his whole militant Church which is a point confessed by learned Protestants to be of great Antiquity and for which the judgement of divers most ancient holy Fathers is reproved by them as may be seen at large in Brerely exactly citing the places of such chiefe Protestants And we must say with S. Cyprian Heresies have sprung and Schismes been bred from no other cause then for that the Priest of God is not obeyed nor one Priest and Iudge is considered to be for the time in the Church of God Which words doe plainely condemne Luther whether he will understand them as spoken of the Vniversall or of every particular Church For he withdrew himselfe both from the obedience of the Pope and of all particular Bishops and Churches And no lesse cleere is the said Optatus Milevitanus saying Thou caust not deny but that thou knowest that in the City of Rome there was first an Episcopall Chaire placed for Peter wherein Peter the head of all the Apostles sate whereof also he was called Cephas in which one Chaire Vn was to be kept by all least the other Apostles might attribute to themselves each one his particular chaire and that he should be a Schismatique and sinner who against that one single Chaire should erect another Many other Authorities of Fathers might be alleaged to this purpose which I omit my intention being not to handle particular controversies 37 Now the arguments which hitherto I have brought prove that Luther and his followers were Schismatiques without examining for as much as belongs to this point whether or no the Church can erre in any one thing great or small because it is universally true that there can be no just cause to forsake the Communion of the Visible Church of Christ according to S. Augustine saying It is not possible that any may have just cause to separate their Communion from the Communion of the whole world and call themselves the Church of Christ as if they had separated themselves from the Communion of all Nations upon just cause But since indeed the Church cannot erre in any one point of doctrine nor can approve any corruption in manners they cannot with any colour avoid the just imputation of eminent Schisme according to the verdict of the same holy Father in these words The most manifest sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there was no cause of separation 38 Lastly I prove that Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schisme at least by reason of their mutuall separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference for the outward face of a Church and profession of a different faith between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and the Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrines far different from his and divided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques and the like argument may proportionably be applyed to their further divisions subdivisions Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter who affirmes that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teacheth that their difference from the Roman Church is not in fundamentall points Now since among Protestants there is such diversity of beliefe that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in errour at least not fundamentall and if D. Potter will speak consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible daÌ„nable what greater division or Schisme can there be then when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible daÌ„nable 39 Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther his followers were Schismatiques from the universall visible Church from the Pope Christs Vicar on earth Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocesse in which they received Baptisme from the Countrey or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop under whom they lived many of them from the Religious Order in which they were professed from one another And lastly from a mans selfe as much as is possible because the selfe same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therefore a reconciliation according to D. Potters grounds is both impossible and damnable 40 It seemes D. Potters last refuge to excuse himselfe and his Brethren from Schisme is because they proceeded according to their conscience dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errours maintained by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confesse the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnableâ— yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41 I answer It is very strange that you judge us extreamly Vncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your selfe avouch the same of all learned Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse If this your pretence of conscience may serue what Schismatique in the Church what popular seditious brain in a kingdome may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schisme or Sedition No man wishes them to doe any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to doe even according to your own affirmation that wee Catholiques want no meanes necessary to salvation Easie to doe Nay not to doe so to any man in his right wits must seem impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enjoy all meanes necessary to
faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Me thinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them Me thinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which you haue no reason to be very proud of for he saies the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not haue fayl'd to haue told them once at least in plaine termes that their faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would haue forborn to put them in feare of an impossibility as hee doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iews had done Me thinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have fayled to haue given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Me thinks writing so often of Heretiques and Antichrist hee should haue given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholique Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successours the Bishops of Route How was it possible that S. Iames and S. Iude in their Catholique Epistles should not giue this Catholique direction Me thinks S. Iohn instead of saying he that believeth that Iesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses doe quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sonnes of God should haue said Hee that adheres to the doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this Mark yee shall know him What man not quite out of his witts if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrine that without the beliefe hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himselfe to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation and so well assured of it as it is pretended should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it and not One say it plainly so much as once but leaue it to be collected from uncertain Principles by many more uncertain consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvell if he censure other inferiour servants of Christs Atheists and Hypocrites and what he pleases Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for when I heard you say the holy Scripture assignes Separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie But instead hereof what haue you brought us but meer impertinencies S. Iohn saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Profession They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us Of some who before the decree of the Councell to the contrary were perswaded and accordingly taught that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses it is said in the Acts Some who went out from us And again S. Paul in the same book forewarnes the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie Which is certainly a strang and unheard of strain of Logick Vnlesse you will say that every Text wherein it is said that some body goes out from some body affords an Argument for this purpose For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretiques but no Christians of Antichrists of such as denied Iesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confesse as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretiques for it speaks only of some who beleeved and taught an Errour while it was yet a question and not evident and therefore according to your doctrine no formall Heresy The third saies indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that saies or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Heretiques I confesse doe alwayes doe so But they that doe so are not alwayes Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to doe so as Rebels alwayes disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a Kings command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are lyable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authoritie your selves will not submit to in all things 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from Vniversality Consent and Antiquity which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not you beg the Question For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrine of the Ancient and because she had done so and so farre forth as she had done so and no farther And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your own grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 22 In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church is the mark of Heresy Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unlesse you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrine whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be cōtrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequall or unreasonable then that you should presse us with
the Popes proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent not as a matter of faith or necessity as it is evident out of Athanasius consequently they rather declare Victors proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seemes then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himselfe the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the High Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commandes us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay men in one kinde to use the Latine service we may very fitly say to him it is better to obey God then men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning methinkes there should be some difference and Polycrates saies no more but that hee was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinall is faine to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is cleerely inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither the one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councell of Nice embrace the censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinall neither doth pretend nor can produce any proofe any way comparable to the fore-alleaged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though peradventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austine and to the first place out of him where he seemes to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austine himselfe was not but retracts it as uncertain leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly what he saies of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he saies it else where of all the Successions in all other Apostolique Churches Thirdly that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church as an argument of their Error So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolique Churches nay more from these then from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetuall Succession of them but in other Apostolique Churches they wanted both These scatter'd men saith he of the Donatists Epist. 165. read in the holy bookes the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and mad then to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say Peace with you and to separate from the peace of these Churches to which these Epistles were written So Optatus having done you as it might seeme great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismatiques because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrowes and undoes it all againe and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you by adding after that they were Schismatiques because They had not the fellowship of Cōmunion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. Iohn writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground 〈◊〉 septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est alienum est Now I pray tell me doe you esteeme the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolique Churches was a certain marke of Heresy or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages hereticall If not how is their authority a greater argument for the Roman then for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schisme only when they were united to the Roman so also they might conceive of the Roman only when it was united to them If you say they urg'd this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might doe that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresy apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 32 The other place is evidently impertinent to the present question nor is there in it any thing but this That Caecilian might contemne the multitude of his adversaries because those that were united with him were more and of more account then those that were against him Had he preferr'd the Roman Church alone before Caecilians enemies this had been litle but something but when other Countries from which the Gospell came first into Africa are joyned in this Patent with the Church of Rome how she can build any singular priviledge upon it I am yet to learne Neither doe I see what can be concluded from it but that in the Roman Church was the Principality of an Apostolique Sea which no man doubts or that the Roman Church was not the Mother Church because the Gospell came first into Africa not from her but from other Churches 33 Thus you see his wordes make very litle or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinall Perrons rule is much more to be regarded then his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretatiō I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in succession touching the great question of Appeales wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so farre in the first or second Milevitan Councell as to decree any African Excommunicate that should appeale to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes cleerely and evidently and infinitely against you For had Boniface and the rest of the African Bishops a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs believed as an Article of faith that Vnion and Conformity with the doctrine of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholique and by Gods command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Vnlesse you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once
will let it passe and desire you to give me some peece or shadow of reason why I may not doe all this without a perpetuall Succession of Bishops and Pastours that have done so before me You may judge as uncharitably and speak as maliciously of me as your blind zeale to your Superstition shall direct you but certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I doe beleeve the Gospell of Christ as it is delivered in the undoubted books of Canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I beleeve it upon this Motive because I conceive it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation And yet in this I doe not depend upon any Succession of men that have alwayes beleeved it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath been no such Succession aud yet doe not find my self any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that not only though your divels at Lowden doe tricks against it but though an Angell from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my self that I should not be moved This I say and this I am sure is true and if you will be so hyperscepticall as to perswade me that I am not sure that I doe beleeve all this I desire you to tell me how are you sure that you beleeve the Church of Rome For if a man may perswade himself he doth beleeve what he doth not beleeve then may you think you beleeve the Church of Rome and yet not beleeve it But if no man can erre concerning what he beleeves then you must give me leave to assure my selfe that I doe beleeve and consequently that any man may beleeve the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives without any dependance upon any Succession that hath beleeved it alwayes And as from your definition of faith so from your definition of Heresy this phancy may be refuted For questionlesse no man can be an Heretique but he that holds an Heresie and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary Errour therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretique whether he will or no by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have But that there should have been a perpetuall Succession of Beleevers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in your power therefore our being or not being Heretiques depends not on it Besides what is more certain then that he may make a streight line who hath a Rule to make it by though never man in the world had made any before and why then may not he that beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God and the Rule of faith regulate his faith by it and consequently beleeve aright without much regarding what other men either will doe or have done It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his words beleeved he by his Providence must take order that either by succession of men or by some other meanes naturall or supernaturall it be preserv'd and delivered and sufficiently notified to bee his word but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no errour against it certainly there is no more necessity then that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sinne against it For if men may preserve the Records of a Law and yet transgresse it certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith and yet not follow them I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barre doe find by frequent experience that many men preserve and produce evidences which being examined of times make against themselves This they doe ignorantly it being in their power to suppresse or perhaps to alter them And why then should any man conceive it strange that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted when indeed for many reasons which I have formerly alleaged it was impossible for them to corrupt them Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetuall Succession of men orthodoxe in all points certainly there is no necessity at all of any such neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Hereticall 39 When therefore you have produced some proofe of this which was your Major in your former Syllogisme That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresy you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any reality or whether it be a creature of your own making a fancy of your own imagination And if it be a thing and not only a word whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours whether some mens perswasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more then a mans perswasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will marke him not to have taken it if hee has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some make upon Heretiques that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferr'd on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Pope's right or an usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiasticall And if by Ecclesiasticall only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to loose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to loose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it untill good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present government established be as unlawfull to goe about to restore it Whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore wee cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schisme a man may not withdraw obediēce from an usurp'd Authority commanding unlawfull things Whether the Roman Church might not give authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Iudge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Traian gave
wisdome to forsake ancient errours for more ancient Truths One God is rather to be follow'd then innumerable worlds of men And therefore it might be great wisdome either for the whole Visible Church nay for all the men in the world having wandred from the way of Truth to return unto it or for a part of it nay for one man to doe so although all the world besides were madly resolute to doe the contrary It might be great wisdome to forsake the errors though of the only Visible Church much more the Roman which in conceiving her self the whole Uisible Church does somewhat like the Frog in the Fable which thought the ditch he liv'd in to be all the world 54 You demand again What wisdome was it to forsake a Church acknowledg'd to want nothing necessary to Salvation indued with Succession of Bishops c usque ad Election or Choice I answer Yet might it be great wisdome to forsake a Church not acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation but accused and convicted of many damnable errors certainly damnable to them who were convicted of them had they still persisted in them after their conviction though perhaps pardonable which is all that is acknowledg'd to such as ignorantly continued in them A Church vainly arrogating without possibility of proof a perpetuall Succession of Bishops holding alwaies the same doctrine and with a ridiculous impudence pretending perpetuall possession of all the world whereas the world knows that a litle before Luthers arising your Church was confined to a part of a part of it Lastly a Church vainly glorying in the dependance of other Churches upon her which yet she supports no more then those crouching Anticks which seeme in great buildings to labour under the weight they beare doe indeed support the Fabrick For a corrupted and false Church may give authority to preach the truth and consequently against her own falshoods and corruptions Besides a false Church may preserve the Scripture true as now the Old Testament is preserved by the Iewes either not being arriv'd to that height of impiety as to attempt the corruption of it or not able to effect it or not perceiving or not regarding the opposition of it to her corruptions And so we might receive from you lawfull Ordination and true Scriptures though you were a false Church and receiving the Scriptures from you though not from you alone I hope you cannot hinder us neither need wee aske your leave to believe and obey them And this though you be a false Church is enough to make us a true one As for a Succession of men that held with us in all points of Doctrine it is a thing we need not and you have as litle as we So that if we acknowledge that your Church before Luther was a true Church it is not for any ends for any dependance that we have upon you but because we conceive that in a charitable construction you may passe for a true Church Such a Church and no better as you doe sometimes acknowledge Protestants to be that is a Company of men wherein some ignorant soules may be saved So that in this ballancing of Religion against Religion and Church against Church it seemes you have nothing of weight and moment to put into your scale nothing but smoak and winde vaine shadowes and phantasticall pretences Yet if Protestants on the other side had nothing to put in their Scale but those negative commendations which you are pleas'd to afford them nothing but no unity nor meanes to procure it no farther extent when Luther arose then Luthers body no Vniversality of time or place no visibility or being except only in your Church no Succession of persons or doctrine no leader but Luther in a quarrell begun upon no ground but passion no Church no Ordination no Scriptures but such as they receiv'd from you if all this were true and this were all that could be pleaded for Protestants possibly with an allowance of three graines of partiality your Scale might seem to turne But then if it may appear that part of these objections are falsely made against them the rest vainely that whatsoever of truth is in these imputations is impertinent to this triall and whatsoever is pertinent is untrue and besides that plenty of good matter may be alleaged for Protestants which is here dissembled Then I hope our cause may be good notwithstanding these pretences 55 I say then that want of Vniversality of time place The invisibility or not existence of the professors of Protestant Doctrine before Luther Luthers being alone when he first opposed your Church Our having our Church Ordination Scriptures personall and yet not doctrinall Succession from you are vain and impertinent allegations against the truth of our Doctrine and Church That the entire truth of Christ without any mixture of error should be professed or believed in all places at any time or in any place at all times is not a thing evident in reason neither have we any Revelation for it And therefore in relying so confidently on it you build your house upon the sand And what obligation we had either to be so peevish as to take nothing of yours or so foolish as to take all I doe not understand For whereas you say that this is to be choosers and therefore Heretiques I tell you that though all Heretiques are choosers yet all choosers are not Heretiques otherwise they also which choose your Religion must be Heretiques As for our wanting Vnity and Meanes of proving it Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion our following private men rather then the Catholique Church the first and last are meere untruths for we want not Vnity nor Meanes to procure it in things necessary Plain places of Scripture and such as need no interpreter are our meanes to obtaine it Neither doe we follow any private men but only the Scripture the word of God as our rule and reason which is also the gift of God given to direct us in all our actions in the use of this rule And then for Luthers opposing your Church upon meere passion it is a thing I will not deny because I know not his heart and for the same reason you should not have affirmed it Sure I am whether he opposed your Church upon reason or no he had reason enough to oppose it And therefore if he did it upon passion we will follow him only in his action and not in his passion in his opposion not in the manner of it and then I presume you will have no reason to condemne us unlesse you will say that a good action cannot be done with reason because some body before us hath done it upon passion You see then how imprudent you have been in the choice of your arguments to prove Protestants unwise in the choice of their Religion 56 It remaines now that I should shew that many reasons of moment may bee alleaged for the justification of
Churches of Asia for differing from him about Easter day And yet I beleiue you will confesse that God had not then declared himselfe about Easter nor hath now about Christmasse Anciently some good Catholique Bishops excommunicated and damned others for holding there were Antipodes and in this question I would faine know on which side was the sufficient proposall The contra-Remonstrants differ from the Remonstrants about the point of predetermination as a matter of faith I would knowe in this thing also which way God hath declar'd himselfe whether for Predetermination or against it Stephen Bishop of Rome held it as a matter of faith Apostolique tradition That Heretiques gaue true Baptisme Others there were and they as good Catholiques as hee that held that this was neither matter of Faith nor matter of Truth Iustin Martyr and Irenaeus held the doctrine of the Millenaries as a matter of faith and though Iustin Martyr deny it yet you I hope will affirme that some good Christians held the contrary St Augustine I am sure held the communicating of Infants as much Apostolique tradition as the Baptising of them whether the Bishop and the Church of Rome of his time held so too or held otherwise I desire you to determine But sure I am the Church of Rome at this present holds the contrary The same S. Austin held it no matter of faith that the Bishops of Rome were Iudges of Appeales from all parts of the Church Catholique no not in Major causes and Major Persons whether the Bishop or Church of Rome did then hold the contrary doe you resolve me but now I am resolv'd they doe so In all these differences the point in question is esteem'd and propos'd by one side at least as a matter of faith and by the other rejected as not so and either this is to disagree in matters of faith or you will have no meanes to shew that we doe disagree Now then to shew you how weak and sandy the foundation is on which the whole fabrick both of your Book and Church depends answer mee briefly to this Dilemma Eyther in these oppositions one of the opposite Parts err'd damnably and denyed Gods truth sufficiently propounded or they did not If they did then they which doe deny Gods truth sufficiently propounded may goe to heaven and then you are rash and uncharitable in excluding us though we were guilty of this fault If not then there is no such necessity that of two disagreeing about a matter of faith one should deny Gods truth sufficiently propounded And so the Major and Minor of your Argument are prov'd false Yet though they were as true as Gospell and as evident as Mathematicall Principles the conclusion so impertinent is it to the Premises might still be false For that which naturally issues from these propositions is not Therefore one only can be saved But Therefore one of them does something that is damnable But with what Logick or what Charity you can inferre either as the immediat production of the former premises or as a Corollary from this conclusion Therefore one only can be saved I doe not understand unlesse you will pretend that this consequence is good such a one doth something damnable therefore he shall certainly be damned which whether it be not to overthrow the Article of our Faith which promises remission of sinnes upon repentance and consequently to ruine the Gospell of Christ I leave it to the Pope and the Cardinalls to determine For if against this it be alleadged that no man can repent of the sinne wherein he dies This muche I have already stopped by shewing that if it be a sinne of Ignorance this is no way incongruous 11 To the fourth You proceed in sleighting and disgracing your Adversary Pretending his objections are mean and vulgar and such as have been answered a thousand times But if your cause were good these Arts would be needlesse For though some of his objections have been often shifted by men that make a profession of devising shifts and evasions to save themselves and their Religion from the pressure of truth by men that are resolv'd they will say something though they can say nothing to purpose yet I doubt not to make it appear that neither by others have they beene truly and really satisfied and that the best Answere you give them is to call them Mean and vulgar objections 12 To the Fift But this paines might have been spared For the substance of his discourse is in a Sermon of D. Vshers and confuted four yeares agoe by Paulus Veridicus It seemes then the substance of your Reply is in Paulus Veridicus and so your paines also might well have been spared But had there been no necessity to help and peece out your confuting his Arguments with disgracing his person which yet you cannot doe you would have considered that to them who compare D. Potters Book the arch-Arch-Bishops Sermon this aspersion will presently appear a poore detraction not to be answered but scorn'd To say nothing that in D. Potter being to answere a book by expresse Command from Royall Authority to leave any thing materiall unsaid because it had been said before especially being spoken at large and without any relation to the Discourse which he was to Answere had been a ridiculous vanity and foule prevarication 13 To the sixt In your sixt parag I let all passe saving only this That a perswasion that men of different Religions you must mean or else you speak not to the point Christians of divers Opinions and Communions may be saved is a most pernitious heresy and even a ground of Atheisme What strange extractions Chymistry can make I know not but sure I am he that by reason would inferre this conclusion That there is no God from this ground That God will save men in different Religions must have a higher strain in Logick then you or I have hitherto made shew of In my apprehension the other part of the contradiction That there is a God should much rather follow from it And whether contradictions will flow from the same fountaine let the Learned judge Perhaps you will say you intended not to deliver here a positive and measur'd truth and which you expected to be call'd to account for but only a high and tragicall expression of your just detestation of the wicked doctrine against which you write If you mean so I shall let it passe only I am to advertize the lesse-wary Reader that passionate expressions and vehement asseverations are no arguments unlesse it be of the weaknesse of the cause that is defended by them or the man that defends it And to remember you of what Boethius saies of some such things as these Nubila mens est haec ubi regnant For my part I am not now in Passion neither will I speak one word which I think I cannot justify to the full and I say and will maintaine that to say That Christians of different Opinions
of it because we say the whole Church much more particular Churches and privat men may erre in points not Fundamentall A pretty sophisme depending upon this Principle that whosoever possibly may erre he cannot be certain that he doth not erre And upon this ground what shall hinder me from concluding that seeing you also hold that neither particular Churches nor private men are Infallible even in Fundamentalls that even the Fundamentalls of Christianity remain to you uncertain A Iudge may possibly erre in judgement can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right A travailer may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my Chamber Or can our London carrier have no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London These you see are right worthy consequences and yet they are as like your own as an egge to an egge or milke to milke 161 And for the selfe same reason you say we are not certain that the Church is not Iudge of Controversies But now this selfe same appears to be no reason and therefore for all this we may be certain enough that the Church is no Iudge of Controversies The ground of this sophisme is very like the former viz. that we can be certain of the falshood of no propositions but these only which are damnable errors But I pray good Sir give me your opinion of these The Snow is black the Fire is cold that M. knot is Archbishop of Toledo that the whole is not greater then a part of the whole that twise two make not foure In your opinion good Sir are these damnable Haeresies or because they are not so have we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir to consider seriously with what strange captions you have gone about to delude your King and your Country and if you be convinced they are so give glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which stands upon such deceitfull foundations 162 Besides you say among publique conclusions defended in Oxford the yeare 1633. to the Questions Whether the Church have authority to determine controversies of Faith And to interpret holy Scripture The answere to both is affirmative But what now if I should tell you that in the year 1632. among publique Conclusions defended in Doway one was That God predeterminates men to all their Actions good bad and indifferent Will you think your selfe obliged to be of this opinion If you will say so If not doe as you would be done by Again me thinkes so subtil a man as you are should easily apprehend a wide difference between Authority to doe a thing and Infallibility in doing it againe between a conditionall infallibility an absolute The former the Doctor together with the Article of the Church of England attributeth to the Church nay to particular Churches and I subscribe to his opinion that is an Authority of determining controversies of faith according to plain and evident Scripture and Vniversall Tradition and Infallibility while they proceed according to this Rule As if there should arise an Heretique that should call in Question Christs Passion and Resurrection the Church had Authority to decide this Controversy and infallible direction how to doe it and to excommunicate this man if he should persist in errour I hope you will not deny but that the Iudges have Authority to determine criminall and Civill Controversies and yet I hope you will not say that they are absolutely Infallible in their determinations Infallible while they proceed according to Law and if they doe so but not infallibly certain that they shall ever doe so But that the Church should be infallibly assisted by Gods spirit to decide rightly all emergent Controversies even such as might be held diversly of divers men Salva compage fidei and that we might be absolutely certain that the Church should never faile to decree the truth whether she used meanes or no whether she proceed according to her Rule or not or lastly that we might be absolutely certain that she would never fail to proceed according to her Rule this the defender of these conclusions said not and therefore said no more to your purpose then you have all this while that is just nothing 163 Ad § 27. To the place of S. Austin alleaged in this paragraph I Answer First that in many things you will not bee tried by S. Augustines judgement nor submit to his authority not concerning Appeals to Rome not concerning Transubstantiation not touching the use and worshiping of Images not concerning the State of Saints soules before the day of judgement not touching the Virgin Maries freedome from actuall and originall sinne not touching the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants not touching the damning Infants to hell that dye without Baptisme not touching the knowledge of Saints departed not touching Purgatory not touching the fallibility of Councells even generall Councells not touching perfection and perspicuity of Scripture in matters necessary to Salvation not touching Auricular Confession not touching the halfe Communion not touching Prayers in an unknown tongue In these things I say you will not stand to S. Austines judgement and therefore can with no reason or equity require us to doe so in this matter 2. To S. Augustine in heat of disputation against the Donatists and ransacking all places for arguments against them we oppose S. Austine out of this heat delivering the doctrine of Christianity calmely and mode rately where he saies In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent â—idem mores'que vivendi 3 Wee say he speaks not of the Roman but the Catholique Church of farre greater extent and therefore of farre greater credit and authority then the Roman Church 4 He speaks of a point not expressed but yet not contradicted by Scripture whereas the errors we charge you with are contradicted by Scripture 5 He saies not that Christ has recommended the Church to us for an Infallible definer of all emergent controversies but for a credible witnesse of Ancient Tradition Whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practise of the Church understand of all places and ages though he be thought to resist our Saviour what is that to us who cast off no practises of the Church but such as are evidently post-nate to the time of the Apostles and plainly contrary to the practise of former and purer times Lastly it is evident and even to impudence it selfe undeniable that upon this ground of beleiving all things taught by the present Church as taught by Christ Error was held for example the necessity of the Eucharist for infants and that in S. Austines time and that by S. Austine himselfe and therefore without controversy this is no certain ground for truth which may support falshood as well as