And indeed take away the authority of Gods Church no man can be assured that any one Book or parcell of Scripture was written by divine inspiration or that all the contents are infallibly true which are the direct errors of Socinians If it were but for thiâ— reason alone no man who regards the eternall salvation of his soule would live or dye in Protestancy from which so vast absurdities as these of the Socinians must inevitably follow And it ought to be an unspeakable comfort to all us Catholiques while we consider that none can deny the infallible authority of our Church but joyntly he must be left to his own wit and waies and must abandon all infused faith and true Religion if he doe but understand himselfe aright In all which discourse the only true word you speak is This I say confidently As for proving evidently that I believe you reserved for some other opportunity for the present I am sure you have been very sparing of it 10 You say indeed confidently enough that the denyall of the Churches infallibility is the Mother Heresy from which all other must follow at ease Which is so farre from being a necessary truth as you make it that it is indeed a manifest falshood Neither is it possible for the wit of man by any good or so much as probable consequence from the deniall of the Churches Infallibility to deduce any one of the ancient Heresies or any one error of the Socinians which are the Heresies here entreated of For who would not laugh at him that should argue thus Neither the Church of Rome nor any other Church is infallible go The doctrine of Arrius Pelagius Eutyches Nestorius Photinus Manichaeus was true Doctrine On the other side it may be truly sayed and justified by very good and effectuall reason that he that affirms with you the Popes infallibility puts himself into his hands and power to be led by him at his ease and pleasure into all Heresy and even to Hell it self and cannot with reason say so long as he is constant to his grounds Domine cur ita facis but must believe white to be black and black to be white vertue to be vice and vice to be vertue nay which is a horrible but a most certain truth Christ to be Antichrist and Antichrist to be Christ if it be possible for the Pope to say so Which I say and will maintain howsoever you daube and disguise it is indeed to make men Apostate from Christ to his pretended Vicar but reall enemy For that name and no better if we may speak truth without offence I presume he deserves who under pretence of interpreting the law of Christ which Authority without any word of expresse warrant he hath taken upon himself doth in many parts evacuate and dissolve it So dethroning Christ from his dominion over mens consciences and in stead of Christ setting up himself In as much as he that requires that his interpretations of any law should be obeyed as true and genuine seeme they to mens understandings never so dissonant and discordant from it as the Bishop of Rome does requires indeed that his interpretations should be the Laws and he that is firmly prepared in mind to believe and receive all such interpretations without judging of them and though to his private judgment they seem unreasonable is indeed congruously disposed to hold adultery a veniall sin and fornication no sinne whensoever the Pope and his adherents shall so declare And whatsoever he may plead yet either wittingly or ignorantly he makes the Law and the Lawmaker both stales and obeyes only the interpreter As if I should pretend that I should submit to the Laws of the King of England but should indeed resolve to obey them in that sence which the King of France should put upon them what soever it were I presume every understanding man would say that I did indeed obey the King of France and not the King of England If I should pretend to believe the Bible but that I would understand it according to the sence which the chiefe Mufty should put upon it who would not say that I were a Christian in pretence only but indeed a Mahumetan 11 Nor will it be to purpose for you to pretend that the precepts of Christ are so plain that it cannot be feared that any Pope should ever goe about to dissolve them and pretend to be a Christian For not to say that you now pretend the contrary to wit that the law of Christ is obscure even in things necessary to be believed and done and by saying so have made a fair way for any fowleâ— interpretation of any part of it certainly that which the Church of Rome hath already done in this kind is an evident argument that if she once had this power unquestion'd and made expedite and ready for use by being contracted to the Pope she may doe what she pleaseth with it Who that had liv'd in the Primitive Church would not have thought it as utterly improbable that ever they should have brought in the worship of Images and picturing of God as now it is that they should legitimate fornication Why may we not think they may in time take away the whole Communion from the Laity as well as they have taken away half of it Why may we not think that any Text and any sence may not be accorded aswell as the whole 14. Ch. of the Ep. of S. Paul to the Corinth is reconcil'd to the Latine service How is it possible any thing should be plainer forbidden then the worship of Angels in the Ep. to the Colossians then the teaching for Doctrines mens commands in the Gospell of S. Mark And therefore seeing we see these things done which hardly any man would have believ'd that had not seen them why should we not fear that this unlimited power may not be us'd hereafter with as litle moderation Seeing devices have been invented how men may worship images without Idolatry and kill innocent men under pretence of heresie without murder who knowes not that some tricks may not be hereafter deuis'd by which lying with other mens wives shall be no Adultery taking away other mens goods no theft I conclude therefore that if Solomon himself were here and were to determine the difference which is more likely to be mother of all Heresy The deniall of the Churche's or the affirming of the Popes infallibility that he would certainly say this is the mother give her the child 12 You say again confidently that if this infallibility be once impeached every man is given â—ver to his own wit and discourse which if you mean discourse not guiding it selfe by Scripture but only by principles of nature or perhaps by prejudices and popular errors and drawing consequences not by rule but chance is by no means true if you mean by discourse right reason grounded on Divine revelation and common notions written by God in the hearts of all
errours which were not damnable I answere All that we forfake in you is only the beliefe and practice and profession of your Errors Hereupon you cast us out of your Communion And then with a strange and contradictious and ridiculous hypocrisy complain that we forsake it As if a man should thrust his friend out of doores and then be offended at his departure But for us not to forsake the beliefe of your Errors having discovered them to be Errors was impossible and therefore to doe so could not be damnable believing them to be Errors Not to forsake the practice and profession of them had been damnable hypocrisie supposing that which you vainly runne away with and take for graunted those errors in themselves were not damnable Now to doe so and as matters now stand not to forsake your Communion is apparently contradictious seeing the condition of your Communion is that we must professe to believe all your doctrines not only not to be damnable errors which will not content you but also to be certain and necessary and revealed truths So that to demand why we forsake your Communion upon pretence of Errors which were not damnable is in effect to demand why we forsooke it upon our forsaking it For to pretend that there are Errors in your Church though not damnable is ipso facto to forsake your Communion and to doe that which both in your account and as you think in Gods account puts him as does so out of your Communion So that either you must free your Church from requiring the belief of any errour whatsoever damnable and not damnable or whether you will or no you must free us from Schisme For schisme there cannot be in leaving your communion unlesse we were obliged to continue in it Man cannot be obliged by Man but to what either formally or virtually he is obliged by God for all just power is from God God the eternall truth neither can nor will obliege us to believe any the least and the most innocent falshood to be a divine truth that is to erre nor to professe a known errour which is to lye So that if you require the belief of any errour among the conditions of your Communion our obligation to communicate with you ceaseth and so the imputation of schisme to us vanisheth into nothing but lies heavy upon you for making our seperation from you just and necessary by requiring unnecessary and unlawfull conditions of your Communion Hereafter therefore I intreat you let not your demand be how could we forsake your Communion without Schisme seeing you err'd not damnably But how we could doe so without Schisme seeing you err'd not at all which if either you doe prove or we cannot disprove it we will I at least will for my part returne to your Communion or subscribe my selfe Schismatique In the mean time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 23 Yet notwitstanding all your Errors we doe not renounce your Communion totally and absolutely but only leave Communicating with you in the practise and profession of your Errors The tryall whereof will be to propose some forme of worshipping God taken wholly out of Scripture and herein if we refuse to joyn with you then and not till then may you justly say we have utterly and absolutely abandoned your Communion 24 To the sixteenth Your sixt demand I have already satisfied in my answeres to the Second and the Fourth and in my reply Ad § 2. toward the end And though you say your repeating must be excused yet I dare not be so confident and therefore forbear it 25 To the seaventeenth To the seaventh Whether errour against any one truth sufficiently propounded as testified by God destroy not the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding salvation I answere if you suppose as you seem to doe the proposition so sufficient that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd that it is from God so that the denyall of it involves also with it the denyall of Gods veracity any such errour destroyes both faith and salvation But if the Proposall be only so sufficient not that the party to whom it is made is convinc'd but only that he should and but for his own fault would have been convinc'd of the divine verity of the doctrine proposed The crime then is not so great for the beliefe of Gods veracity may well consist with such an Errour Yet a fault I confesse it is and without Repentance damnable if all circumstances considered the proposall be sufficient But then I must tell you that the proposall of the present Roman Church is only pretended to be sufficient for this purpose but is not so especially all the Rayes of the Divinity which they pretend to shine so conspicuously in her proposalls being so darkned and even extinguished with a cloud of contradiction from Scripture Reason and the Ancient Church 26 To the Eighteenth To the eight How of disagreeing Protestants both parts may hope for salvation seeing some of them must needs erre against some Truth testified by God I answere 1. The most disagreeing Protestants that are yet thus farre agree that these books of Scripture which were never doubted of in the Church are the undoubted word of God and a perfect rule of faith 2. That the sense of them which God intended whatsoever it is is certainly true So that they believe implicitely even those very truths against which they erre and why an implicit faith in Christ and his Word should not suffice as well as an implicit faith in your Church I have desired to be resolved by many of your Side but never could 3. That they are to use their best endeavours to beleive the Scripture in the true sense and to live according to it This if they performe as I hope many on all Sides doe truly and syncerely it is impossible but that they should believe aright in all things necessary to salvation that is in all those things which appertain to the Covenant between God and man in Christ for so much is not only plainly but frequently contained in Scripture And believing aright touching the Covenant if they for their parts perform the condition required of them which is syncere obedience why should they not expect that God will performe his promise and give them salvation For as for other things which lye without the Covenant and are therefore lesse necessary if by reason of the seeming conflict which is oftentimes between Scripture and Reason and Authority on the one side and Scripture Reason and Authority on the other if by reason of the variety of tempers abilities educations unavoidable prejudices whereby mens understandings are variously form'd and fashion'd they doe embrace severall Opinions whereof some must be erroneous to say that God will damne them for such errors who are lovers of him and lovers of truth is to rob man of his comfort and God of his goodnesse it is to make Man
is to be presupposed before we can see the light thereof and consequently there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith which can be no other then the Church 13 Others affirme that they know Canonicall Scriptures to be such by the Title of the Bookes But how shall we know such Inscriptions or Titles to be infallibly true From this their Answere our argument is strengthened because divers Apocryphall writings have appeared under the Titles and Names of sacred Authors as the Gospell of Thomas mentioned by S. Augustine the Gospell of Peter which the Nazaraei did use as Theodoret witnesseth with which Seraphion a Catholique Bishop was for some time deceived as may be read in Eusebius who also speaketh of the Apocalyps of Peter The like may be said of the Gospells of Barnabas Bartholomew and other such writings specified by Pope Gelasius Protestants reject likewise some part of Esther and Daniel which bear the same Titles with the rest of those Bookes as also both we and they hold for Apochryphall the third and fourth Bookes which goe under the name of Esdras and yet both of us receive his first and second book Wherefore Titles are not sufficient assurances what bookes be Canonicall which D. Covell acknowledgeth in these words It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure us that we doe well to think it is the word of God the first outward motion leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church which teacheth us to receive Marks Gospell who was not an Apostle and to refuse the Gospell of Thomas who was an Apostle and to retain Lukes Gospell who saw not Christ and to reiect the Gospell of Nicodemus who saw him 14 Another Answer or rather Objection they are wont to bring That the Scripture being a principle needs no proof among Christians So D. Potter But this is either a plain begging of the question or manifestly untrue and is directly against their own doctrine and practise If they mean that Scripture is one of those principles which being the first and the most known in all Sciences cannot be demonstrated by other Principles they suppose that which is in question whether there be not some principle for example the Church whereby we may come to the knowledge of Scripture If they intend that Scripture is a Principle but not the first and most known in Christianity then Scripture may be proved For principles that are not the first not known of themselves may and ought to be proved before we can yeild assent either to them or to other verities depending on them It is repugnant to their own doctrine and practise in as much as they are wont to affirme that one part of Scripture may be known to be Canonicall and may be interpreted by another And since every Scripture is a principle sufficient upon which to ground divine faith they must grant that one Principle may and sometime must be proved by another Yea this their Answer upon due ponderation falls out to prove what we affirme For since all Principles cannot be proved we must that our labour may not be endlesse come at length to rest in some principle which may not require any other proof Such is Tradition which involves an evidence of fact and from hand to hand and age to age bringing us up to the times and Persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himselfe cometh to be confirmed by all those miracles and other arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Wherefore the ancient Fathers avouch that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of Gods Church S. Athanasius saith that only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church have so determined The third Councell of Carthage having set down the Bookes of holy Scripture gives the reason because We have received from our Fathers that these are to be read in the Church 8. Augustine speaking of the Acts of the Apostles saith To which book I must give credit if I give credit to the Gospell because the Catholique Church doth a like recommend to me both these Bookes And in the same place he hath also these words I would not believe the Gospell unles the authority of the Catholique Church did move me A saying so plain that Zuinglius is forced to cry out Heere I implore your equity to speak freely whether this saying of Augustine seem not overbold or else unadvisedly to have fallen from him 15 But suppose they were assured what Books were Canonicall this will little avail them unles they be likewise certain in what language they remain uncorrupted or what Translations be true Calvin acknowledgeth corruption in the Hebrew Text which if it be taken without points is so ambiguous that scarcely any one Chapter yes period can be securely understood without the help of some Translation If with points These were after S. Hieroms time invented by the perfidious Iewes who either by ignorance might mistake or upon malice force the Text to favour their impieties And that the Hebrew Text still retaines much ambiguity is apparent by the disagreeing Translation of Novelists which also proves the Greek for the New Testament not to be void of doubtfulnes as Calvin confesseth it to be corrupted And although both the Hebrew and Greeke were pure what doth this help if only Scripture be the rule of faith and so very few be able to examine the Text in these languages All then must be reduced to the certainty of Translations into other tongues wherein no private man having any premise or assurance of infallibility Protestants who rely upon Scripture alone will find no certain ground for their faith as accordingly Whitaker affirmeth Those who understand not the Hebrew and Greek doe erre often and unavoidably 16 Now concerning the Translations of Protestants it will be sufficient to set down what the laborious exact and jucicious Author of the Protestants Apology c. dedicated to our late King Iames of famous memory hath to this purpose To omit saith he particulars whose recitall would be infinite and to touch this point but generally only the Translation of the New Testament by Luther is condemned by Andreas O siander Keckermannus and Zuinglius who saith hereof to Luther Thou dost corrupt the word of God thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter of the holy Scriptures how much are we ashamed of thee who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure and now prove thee to be such a man And in like manner doth Luther reject the Translation of the Zuinglians terming them in matter of Divinity fooles Asses Anuchrists deceavers and of Asse-like understanding In so much that when Froschoverus the Zwinglian Printer of Zurich sent him a Bible translated by the Divines there Luther would not receive the same but sending it
may justly decline his sentence for feare temporall respects should either blinde his judgement or make him pronounce against it 20 Seaventhly In Civill Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plaintiffe must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plaintiffe by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my opinion and doe you no wrong and you yours and doe mee none Nay we may both of us hold our opinion and yet doe our selues no harme provided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation and that we loue truth so well as to bee diligent to informe our Conscience and constant in following it 21 Eightly For the ending of Civill Controversies who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only Iudges should bee appointed but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are Thus all the Iudges of our Land are known men known to be Iudges and no man can doubt or question but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing who were these Iudges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority but only some Topicall congruities would not any man say such Iudges in all likelyhood would rather multiply Controversies then end them 22 Ninthly and lastly For the deciding of Civill Controversies men may appoint themselues a judge But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it who doth not alwaies giue us those things which we conceiue most expedient for our selues 23 So likewise if our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some Visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in plaine termes hee would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue said plainely The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour design'd the Bishop of Rome to this Office yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad Rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leaue it to bee drawn out of uncertain Principles by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences He that can beleiue it let him All these Reasons I hope will convince you that though we haue and haue great necessity of Iudges in Civill and Criminall causes yet you may not conclude from thence that there is any publique authoriz'd Iudge to determine Controversies in Religion nor any necessity there should be any 24 But the Scripture stands in need of some watchfull and unerring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receiue it syncere and pure Very true but this is no other then the watchfull eye of divine providence the goodnesse whereof will never suffer that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted but that in them should be alwaies extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternall happinesse Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodnesse then to suffer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment and yet to exact of men the beliefe of those verities which without their fault or knowledge or possibility of prevention were defac'd out of them So that God requiring of men to belieue Scripture in its purity ingages himselfe to see it preserv'd in sufficient purity and you need not feare but he will satisfie his ingagement You say we can haue no assurance of this but your Churches Vigilancie But if we had no other we were in a hard case for who could then assure us that your Church has been so vigilant as to guard Scripture from any the least alteration There being various Lections in the ancient copies of your Bibles what security can your new rail'd Office of Assurance giue us that that reading is true which you now receiue and that false which you reject Certainly they that anciently received and made use of these divers Copies were not all guarded by the Churches vigilancy from having their Scripture alter'd from the puritie of the Originall in many places For of different readings it is not in nature impossible that all should bee false but more then one cannot possibly be true Yet the want of such a protection was no hinderance to their salvation and why then shall the having of it be necessary for ours But then this Vigilancy of your Church what meanes haue we to be ascertain'd of it First the thing is not evident of it selfe which is evident because many doe not belieue it Neither can any thing be pretended to giue evidence to it but only some places of Scripture of whose incorruption more then any other what is it that can secure me If you say the Churches vigilancy you are in a Circle proving the Scriptures uncorrupted by the Churches vigilancy the Churches vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture and againe the incorruption of those places by the Churches vigilancy If you name any other meanes then that meanes which secures mee of the Scriptures incorruption in those places will also serue to assure me of the same in other places For my part abstracting from Divine Providence which will never suffer the way to Heaven to bee block'd up or made invisible I know no other meanes I meane no other naturall and rationall meanes to be assured hereof then I haue that any other Book is uncorrupted For though I haue a greater degree of rationall and humane Assurance of that then this in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible That the Scripture hath been preserv'd from any materiall alteration yet my assurance of both is of the same kinde and condition both Morall assurances and neither Physicall or Mathematicall 25 To the next Argument the Reply is obvious That though we doe not belieue the books of Scripture to be Canonicall because they say so For other books that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it yet we belieue not this upon the authority of your Church but upon the Credibilitie of Vniversall Tradition which is a thing Credible of it selfe and therefore fit to bee rested on whereas the Authority of your Church is not so And therefore your rest thereon is not rationall but meerly voluntary I might as well rest upon the judgement of the next man I meet or upon the chance of a Lottery for it For by this meanes I only know I might erre but by relying on you I know I should erre But yet to returne you one suppose for another suppose I should for this and all other things submit to her direction how could shee assure mee that I should not be mis-led by doing so She pretends indeed infallibility herein but how can she assure us that she hath it What by Scriptureâ—
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
that these controversies about Scripture are not decidable by Scripture and have shewed that your deduction from it that therefore they are to be determin'd by the authority of some present Church is irrationall and inconsequent I might well forbeare to tire my selfe with an exact and punctuall examination of your premises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wether they be true or false is to the Question disputed wholly impertinent Yet because you shall not complaine of tergiverâ—ation I will runne over them and let nothing that is materiall and considerable passe without some stricture or animadversion 30 You pretend that M. Hooker acknowledgeth that That whereon we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word is the Church and for this acknowledgement you referre us to l. 3. Sect. 8. Let the Reader consult the place and he shall finde that he and M. Hooker have been much abused both by you here and by M. Breerly and others before you and that M. Hooker hath not one syllable to your pretended purpose but very much directly to the contrary There he tells us indeed that ordinarily the first introduction and probable motive to the belief of the verity is the Authority of the Church but that it is the last Foundation whereon our belief hereof is rationally grounded that in the same place he plainly denies His words are Scripture teacheth us that saving Truth which God hath discovered unto the world by Revelation and it presumeth us taught otherwise that it selfe is divine and sacred The Question then being by what meanes we are taught this some answere that to learne it we have no other way then tradition As namely that so we believe because we from our Predecessors and they from theirs have so received But is this enough That which all mens experience teacheth them may not in any wise be denied and by experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church For when we know the whole Church of God hath that opinion of the Scripture we judge it at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary minde without cause Afterwards the more we bestow our labour upon reading or hearing the mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our received opinion concerning it so that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before doth now much more prevaile when the very thing hath ministred farther reason If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question this giveth us occasion to sift what reason there is whereby the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture and our own perswasion which Scripture it selfe hath setled may be proved a truth infallible In which case the ancient Fathers being often constrained to shew what warrant they had so much to rely upon the Scriptures endeavoured still to maintaine the Authority of the bookes of God by arguments such as the unbelievers themselves must needs think reasonable if they judge thereof as they should Neither is it a thing impossible or greatly hard even by such kinde of proofes so to manifest and cleare that point that no man living shall be able to deny it without denying some apparent principle such as all men acknowledge to be true By this time I hope the reader sees sufficient proofe of what I said in my Reply to your Preface that M. Breerelies great ostentation of exactnesse is no very certain argument of his fidelity 31 But seeing the beliefe of the Scripture is a necessary thing and cannot be prov'd by Scripture how can the Church of England teach as she doth Art 6. That all things necessary are contain'd in Scripture 32 I have answered this already And here again I say That all but cavillers will easily understand the meaning of the Article to be That all the Divine verities which Christ revealed to his Apostles and the Apostles taught the Churches are contained in Scripture That is all the materiall objects of our faith whereof the Scripture is none but only the meanes of conveying them unto us which we believe not finally and for it selfe but for the matter contained in it So that if men did believe the doctrine contained in Scripture it should no way hinder their salvation not to know whether there were any Scripture or no. Those barbarous nations Irenaeus speaks of were in this case and yet no doubt but they might be saved The end that God aimes at is the beliefe of the Gospell the covenant between God and man the Scripture he hath provided as a meanes for this end and this also we are to believe but not as the last object of our faith but as the instrument of it When therefore we subscribe to the 6. Art you must understand that by Articles of Faith they mean the finall and ultimate objects of it and not the meanes and instrumentall objects and then there will be no repugnance between what they say and that which Hooker and D. Covell and D. Whitaker and Luther here say 33 But Protestants agree not in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Luther and Illyricus reject the Epistle of S. Iames. Kemnitius and other Luth. the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn The Epist. to the Heb. the Epist. of Iames of Iude and the Apocalyps Therefore without the Authority of the Church no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall 34 So also the Ancient Fathers and not only Fathers but whole Churches differed about the certainty of the authority of the very same bookes and by their difference shewed they knew no necessity of conforming themselves herein to the judgement of your or any Church For had they done so they must have agreed all with that Church and consequently among themselves Now I pray tell me plainly Had they sufficient certainty what Scripture was Canonicall or had they not If they had not it seemes there is no such great harme or danger in not having such a certainty whether some books be Canonicall or no as you require If they had why may not Protestants notwithstanding their differences have sufficient certainty hereof as well as the Ancient Fathers and Churches notwithstanding theirs 35 You proceed And whereas the Protestants of England in the 6. Art have these words In the name of the Holy Scripture we doe vnderstand those Bookes of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church you demaund what they meane by them Whether that by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall I Answer for them Yes they are so And whereas you inferre from hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already That of this Controversie we make the Church the Iudge but not the present Church much lesse the present Roman Church but the consent and testimony of the
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
Church which hath delivered at severall times Scriptures in many places different and repugnant for Authenticall Canonicall Which is most evident out of the place of Malachie which is so quoted for the Sacrifice of the Masse that either all the ancient Fathers had false Bibles or yours is false Most evident likewise from the comparing of the story of Iacob in Genesis with that which is cited out of it in the Epistle to the Hebrewes according to the vulgar Edition But aboue all to any one who shall compare the Bibles of Sixtus and Clement so evident that the wit of man cannot disguise it 93 And thus you see what reason we haue to belieue your Antecedent That your Church it is which must declare what Books bee true Scripture Now for the consequence that certainty is as liable to exception as the Antecedent For if it were true that God had promised to assist you for the delivering of true Scripture would this oblige Him or would it follow from hence that He had oblig'd himselfe to teach you not only sufficiently but effectually and irresistibly the true sense of Scripture God is not defectiue in things necessary neither will he leave himselfe without witnesse nor the World without meanes of knowing his will and doing it And therefore it was necessary that by his Providence he should preserve the Scripture from any undiscernable corruptiō in those things which he would haue known otherwise it is apparent it had not been his will that these things should be known the only meanes of continuing the knowledge of them being perished But now neither is God lavish in superfluities and therefore having given us meanes sufficient for our direction and power sufficient to make use of these meanes he will not constraine or necessitate us to make use of these meanes For that were to crosse the end of our Creation which was to be glorified by our free obedience whereas necessity and freedome cannot stand together That were to reverse the Law which he hath prescribed to himselfe in his dealing with men and that is to set life and death before him and to leaue him in the hands of his own Counsell God gaue the Wisemen a Starre to lead them to Christ but he did not necessitate them to follow the guidance of this starre that was left to their liberty God gaue the Children of Israel a Fire to lead them by night and a Pillar of Cloud by day but he constrained no man to follow them that was left to their liberty So he giues the Church the Scripture which in those things which are to be believed or done are plain and easie to be follow'd like the Wise men's Starre Now that which he desires of us on our part is the Obedience of Faith and loue of the Truth and desire to finde the true sense of it and industry in searching it and humility in following and Constancy in professing it all which if he should work in us by an absolute irresistible necessity he could no more require of us as our duty then he can of the Sunne to shine of the Sea to ebb flowe and of all other Creatures to doe those things which by meere necessity they must doe and cannot choose Besides what an impudence is it to pretend that your Church is infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of the Scripture whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which you doe not pretend certainly to understand and about the Interpretation whereof your own Doctors differ among themselues If your Church be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture why doe not your Doctors follow her infallible direction And if they doe how comes such difference among them in their Interpretations 94 Again why does your Church thus put her candle under a Bushell and keep her Talent of interpreting Scripture infallibly thus long wrapt up in napkins Why sets she not forth Infallible Commentaries or Expositions upon all the Bible Is it because this would not be profitable for Christians that Scripture should be Interpreted It is blasphemous to say so The Scripture it selfe tells us All Scripture is profitable And the Scripture is not so much the Words as the Sense And if it be not profitable why does shee imploy particular Doctors to interpret Scriptures fallibly unlesse we must think that fallible Interpretations of Scripture are profitable and infallible interpretations would not be so 95 If you say the Holy Ghost which assists the Church in interpreting will move the Church to interpret when he shall think fit and that the Church will doe it when the Holy Ghost shall move her to doe it I demand whether the Holy Ghost's moving of the Church to such works as these be resistible by the Church or irresistible If resistible then the Holy Ghost may move and the Church may not be moved As certainly the Holy Ghost doth alwaies move to an action when he shewes us plainly that it would be for the good of men and honour of God As he that hath any sense will acknowledge that an infallible exposition of Scripture could not but be and there is no conceivable reason why such a work should be put off a day but only because you are conscious to your selves you cannot doe it and therefore make excuses But if the moving of the Holy Ghost be irresistible and you are not yet so mov'd to goe about this work then I confesse you are excused But then I would know whether those Popes which so long deferred the calling of a Councell for the Reformation of your Church at length pretended to be effected by the Councell of Trent whether they may excuse themselves for that they were not moved by the Holy Ghost to doe it I would know likewise as this motion is irresistible when it comes so whether it be so simply necessary to the moving of your Church to any such publique Action that it cannot possibly move without it That is whether the Pope now could not if he would seat himselfe in Cathedra and fall to writing expositions upon the Bible for the directions of Christians to the true sense of it If you say he cannot you will make your selfe ridiculous If he can then I would know whether he should be infallibly directed in these expositions or no If he should then what need he to stay for irresistible motion Why does he not goe about this noble worke presently If he should not How shall we know that the calling of the Councell of Trent was not upon his own voluntary motion or upon humane importunity and suggestion and not upon the motion of the Holy Ghost And consequently how shall we know whether he were assistant to it or no seeing he assists none but what he himselfe moves to And whether he did move the Pope to call this Councell is a secret thing which we cannot possibly know nor perhaps the Pope himselfe 96 If you say your meaning is only
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
understanding whether they be learned or unlearned And my reason hereof is convincing and Demonstrative because nothing is necessary to be believed but what is plainly revealed For to say that when a place of Scripture by reason of ambiguous termes lies indifferent between divers senses whereof one is true and the other is false that God obliges men under pain of damnation not to mistake through error and humane frailty is to make God a Tyrant and to say that he requires us certainly to attain that end for the attaining whereof we have no certain meanes which is to say that like Pharaoh he gives no straw and requires brick that he reapes where he sowes not that he gathers where he strewes not that he will not be pleas'd with our utmost endeavours to please him without full and exact and never failing performance that his will is we should doe what he knowes we cannot doe that he will not accept of us according to that which we have but requireth of us what we have not Which whether it can consist with his goodnes with his wisdome with his word I leave it to honest men to judge If I should send a servant to Paris or Rome or lerusalem and he using his utmost diligence not to mistake his way yet notwithstanding meeting often with such places where the road is divided into severall waies whereof every one is as likely to be true and as likely to be false as any other should at length mistake and goe out of the way would not any man say that I were an impotent foolish and unjust master if I should be offended with him for doing so And shall we not tremble to impute that to God which we would take in foule scorne if it were imputed to our selves Certainly I for my part fear I should not loue God if I should think so strangely of him 105 Againe When you say that unlearned and ignor an t men cannot understand Scripture I would desire you to come out of the clouds and tell us what you meane Whether that they cannot understand all Scripture or that they cannot understand any Scripture or that they cannot understand so much as is sufficient for their direction to Heaven If the first I believe the Learned are in the same case If the Second every mans experience will confute you for who is there that is not capable of a sufficient understanding of the Story the Precepts the Promises and the Threats of the Gospell If the third that they may understand something but not enough for their Salvations I aske you first Why then doth S. Paul say to Timothy The Scriptures are able to make him wise unto Salvation Why does Saint Austine say Eaquae manifestâ— posita sunt in sacris Scripturis omnia continent quae pertinent and Fidem Moresque vivendi Why does every one of the four Evangelists intitle their book The Gospell if any necessary and essentiall part of the Gospell were left out of it Can we imagine that either they omitted something necessary out of ignorance not knowing it to be necessary Or knowing it to be so malitiously concealed it Or out of negligence ' did the work they had undertaken by halfes If none of these things can without Blasphemy be imputed to them considering they were assisted by the Holy Ghost in this work then certainly it most evidently followes that every one of them writ the whole Gospell of Christ I mean all the essentiall and necessary parts of it So that if we had no other book of Scripture but one of them alone we should not want any thing necessary to Salvation And what one of them has more then another it is only profitable and not necessary Necessary indeed to be believed because revealed but not therefore revealed because necessary to be believed 106 Neither did they write only for the learned but for all men This being one especial meanes of the preaching of the Gospel which was commanded to be preached not only to learned men but to all men And therefore unlesse we will imagine the Holy Ghost and them to have been wilfully wanting to their own desire and purpose we must conceive that they intended to speak plain even to the capacity of the simplest at least touching all things necessary to be published by them and believed by us 107 And whereas you pretend it is so easie and obvious both for the learned and the ignorant both to know which is the Church and what are the Decrees of the Church and what is the sense of those Decrees I say this is a vaine pretense 108 For first How shall an unlearned man whom you haue supposed now ignorant of Scripture how shall he know which of all the Societies of Christians is indeed the Church You will say perhaps he must examine them by the notes of the Church which are perpetuall Visibilitie Succession Conformitie with the ancient Church c. But how shall he know first that these are the notes of the Church unlesse by Scripture which you say he understands not You may say perhaps he may be told so But seeing men may deceive and be deceived and their words are no demonstrations how shall he be assured that what they say is true So that at the first he meets with an impregnable difficulty and cannot know the Church but by such notes which whether they be the notes of the Church he cannot possibly know But let us suppose this Isthmus digged through and that he is assured these are the notes of the true Church How can he possible be a competent Iudge which society of Christians hath title to these notes and which hath not Seeing this triall of necessity requires a great sufficiency of knowledge of the monuments of Christian Antiquity which no unlearned can haue because he that hath it cannot be unlearned As for example how shall he possibly be able to know whether the Church of Rome hath had a perpetuall Succession of Visible Professors which held alwayes the same Doctrine which they now hold without holding any thing to the contrary unlesse he hath first examined what was the Doctrine of the Church in the first age what in the second and so forth And whether this be not a more difficult work then to stay at the first Age and to examine the Church by the conformity of her Doctrine with the Doctrine of the first age every man of ordinary understanding may judge 108 Let us imagine him advanc'd a step farther and to know which is the Church how shall he know what that Church hath decreed seeing the Church hath not been so carefull in keeping of her decrees but that many are lost and many corrupted Besides when even the Learned among you are not agreed concerning divers things whether they be De Fide or not how shall the unlearned doe Then for the sense of the Decrees how can he be more capable of the understanding of them then
of his may informe you Non enim per alios c. we have received the disposition of our Salvation from no others but from them by whom the Gospell came unto us Which Gospell truly the Apostles first preached and after wards by the will of God delivered in writing to us to be the Pillar and Foundation of our faith Vpon which place Bellarmine's two observations and his acknowledgment ensuing upon them are very considerable and as I conceive as home to my purpose as I would wish them His first Notandum is That in the Christian Doctrine some things are simply necessary for the Salvation of all men as the knowledge of the Articles of the Apostles Creed and besides the knowledg of the ten Commandements and some of the Sacraments Other things not so necessary but that a man may be saved without the explicit knowledge and belief and profession of them His Second Note is That those things which were simply necessary the Apostles were wont to preach to all men But of other things not all to all but somethings to all to wit those things which were profitable for all other things only to Prelats and Priests These things premised he acknowledgeth That all those things were written by the Apostles which are necessary for all and which they were wont openly to preach to all But that other things were not all written And therefore when Irenaeus saies that the Apostles wrot what they Preach in the World it is true saith he and not against Traditions because they preached not to the People all things but only those things which were necessary or profitable for them 145 So that at the most you can inferre from hence but only a suppositive necessity of having an infallible Guide and that grounded upon a false supposition In case we had no Scripture but an absolute necessity hereof and to them who have and believe the Scripture which is your assumption cannot with any colour from hence be concluded but rather the contrary 146 Neither because as He saies it was then easy to receive the Truth from Gods Church then in the Age next after the Apostles Then when all the ancient and Apostolike Churches were at an agreement about the Fundamentalls of Faith Will it therefore follow that now 1600 yeares after when the ancient Churches are divided almost into as many Religions as they are Churches every one being the Church to it selfe and hereticall to all other that it is as easy but extremely difficult or rather impossible to find the Church first independently of the true Doctrine and then to find the truth by the Church 147 As for the last clause of the sentence it will not any whit advantage but rather prejudice your assertion Neither will I seek to avoid the pressure of it by saying that he speaks of small Questions and therefore not of Questions touching things necessary to Salvation which can hardly be called small Questions But I will favour you so farre as to suppose that saying this of small Questions it is probable he would have said it much more of the Great but I will answere that which is most certain and evident and which I am confident you your selfe were you as impudent as I believe you modest would not deny that the ancient Apostolique Churches are not now as they were in Irenaeus's time then they were all at unity about matters of faith which unity was a good assurance that what they so agreed in came from some one common Fountaine and they had no other then of Apostolike Preaching And this is the very ground of Tertullian's so often mistaken Prescription against Heretiques Variasse debuerat Error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unum est non est erratum sed traditum If the Churches had erred they could not but have varied but that which is one among so many came not by Error but Tradition But now the case is altered and the mischiefe is that these ancient Churches are divided among themselves and if we have recourse to them one of them will say this is the way to heaven another that So that now in place of receiving from them certain and cleare truths we must expect nothing but certain and cleare contradictions 148 Neither will the Apostles depositing with the Church all things belonging to truth be any proof that the Church shall certainly keep this depositum entire and syncere without adding to it or taking from it for this whole depositum was committed to every particular Church nay to every particular man which the Apostles converted And yet no man I think will say that there was any certainty that it should be kept whole and inviolate by every man and every Church It is apparent out of Scripture it was committed to Timothy and by him consigned to other faithfull men and yet S. Paul thought it not superfluous earnestly to exhort him to the carefull keeping of it which exhortation you must grant had been vain and superfluous if the not keeping of it had been impossible And therefore though Irenaeus saies The Apostles fully deposited in the Church all truth yet he saies not neither can we inferre from what he saies that the Church should alwaies infallibly keep this depositum entire without the losse of any truth and syncere without the mixture of any falshood 149 Ad § 25. But you proceed and tell us That beside all this the Doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it selfe For either they have certain and Infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting or no◠If not Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith If they have and so cannot erre in interpreting Scripture then they are able with infallibility to heare 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 beside Scripture alone And may not we with as much reason substitute Church and Papists instead of Scripture and Protestants and say unto you Besides all this the doctrine of Papists is destructive of it selfe For either they have certain and infallible meanes not to erre in the choice of the Church and interpreting her decrees or they have not If not then the Church to them cannot be a sufficient but meerely a phantasticall ground for infallible faith nor a meet Iudge of Controversies For unlesse I be infallibly sure that the Church is Infallible how can I be upon her Authority infallibly sure that any thing she saies is Infallible If they have certain infallible meanes and so cannot erre in the choice of their Church and in interpreting her decrees then they are able with Infallibility to heare examine and determine all controversies of faith although they pretend to make the Church their Guide And thus against their own Doctrine they constitute another Iudge of controversies besides the Church alone Nay
cannot know any thing Fundamentall or not Fundamentall For how can I come to know that there was such a man as Christ that he taught such Doctrine that he and his Apostles did such miracles in confirmation of it that the Scripture is Gods word unlesse I be taught it So then the Church is though not a certain Foundation and proof of my Faith yet a necessary introduction to it 39 But the Churches infallible direction extending only to Fundamentalls unlesse I know them before I goe to learn of her I may be rather deluded then instructed by her The reason and connexion of this consequence I fear neither I nor you doe well understand And besides I must tell you you are too bold in taking that which no man grants you that the Church is an infallible direction in Fundamentalls For if she were so then must we not only learn Fundamentalls of her but also learn of her what is fundamentall and take all for fundamentall which she delivers to be such In the performance whereof if I knew any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church But good Sir you must needs doe us this favour to be so acute as to distinguish between being infallible in fundamentalls and being an infallible guide in fundamentalls That she shall be alwaies a Church infallible in fundamentalls we easily grant for it comes to no more but this that there shall be alwaies a Church But that there shall be alwaies such a Church which is an infallible Guide in fundamentalls this we deny For this cannot be without setling a known infallibility in some one known society of Christians as the Greek or the Roman or some other Church by adhering to which Guide men might be guided to believe aright in all Fundamentalls A man that were destitute of all meanes of communicating his thoughts to others might yet in himselfe and to himselfe be infallible but he could not be a Guide to others A man or a Church that were invisible so that none could know how to repaire to it for direction could not be an infallible guide and yet he might be in himselfe infallible You see then there is a wide difference between these two and therefore I must beseech you not to confound them nor to take the one for the other 40 But they that know what points are Fundamentall otherwise then by the Churches authority learn not of the Church Yes they may learn of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God and from the Scripture that such points are fundamentall others are not so and consequently learn even of the Church even of your Church that all is not fundamentall nay all is not true which the Church teacheth to be so Neither doe I see what hinders but a man may learn of a Church how to confure the errors of that Church which taught him as well as of my Master in Physick or the Mathematicks I may learn those rules and principles by which I may confute my Masters erroneous conclusions 41 But you aske If the Church be not an infallible teacher why are we commanded to hear to seek to obey the Church I Answer For commands to seek the Church I have not yet met with any and I believe you if you were to shew them would be your selfe to seek But yet if you could produce some such we might seek the Church to many good purposes without supposing her a Guide infallible And then for hearing and obeying the Church I would fain know whether none may be heard and obeyed but those that are infallible Whether particular Churches Governors Pastors Parents be not to be heard and obeyed Or whether all these be Infallible I wonder you will thrust upon us so often these worne out-objections without taking notice of their Answers 42 Your Argument from S. Austine's first place is a fallacy Adicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter If the whole Church practise any of these things matters of order and decency for such only there he speaks of to dispute whether that ought to be done is insolent madnesse And from hence you inferre If the whole Church practise any thing to dispute whether it ought to be done is insolent madnesse As if there were no difference between any thing and any of these things Or as if I might not esteem it pride and folly to contradict and disturbe the Church for matter of order pertaining to the time and place and other circumstances of Gods worship and yet account it neither pride nor folly to goe about to reforme some errors which the Church hath suffered to come in and to vitiate the very substance of Gods worship It was a practise of the whole Church in S. Austines time and esteem'd an Apostolique Tradition even by Saint Austine himself That the Eucharist should be administred to infants Tell me Sir I beseech you Had it been insolent madnesse to dispute against this practise or had it not If it had how insolent and mad are yoâ— that have not only disputed against it but utterly abolished it If it had not then as I say you must understand S. Austines words not simply of all things but as indeed he himselfe restrained them of these things of matter of Order Decency and Vniformity 43 In the next place you tell us out of him That that which has been alwaies kept is most rightly esteem'd to come from the Apostles Very right and what then Therefore the Church cannot erre in defining of Controversies Sir I beseech you when you write again doe us the favour to write nothing but syllogismes for I find it still an extream trouble to find out the concealed propositions which are to connect the parts of your enthymemes As now for example I professe unto you I am at my wits end and have done my best endeavour to find some glue or sodder or cement or chaine or thred or anything to tye this antecedent and this consequent together and at length am inforced to give it over and cannot doe it 44 But the Doctrines that Infants are to be baptized and those that are baptized by Heretiques are not to be re-baptized are neither of them to be proved by Scripture And yet according to S. Austine they are true Doctrines and we may be certain of them upon the Authority of the Church which we could not be unless the Church were Infallible therefore the Church is infallible I answer that there is no repugnance but we may be certain enough of the Vniversall Traditions of the ancient Church such as in S. Austin's account these were which here are spoken of and yet not be certain enough of the definitions of the present Church Vnlesse you can shew which I am sure you can never doe that the Infallibility of the present Church was alwaies a Tradition of the ancient Church Now your main businesse is to prove the present Church infallible not so much in consigning ancient
the main Question in this businesse is not what divine Revelations are necessary to be believed or not rejected when they are sufficiently proposed for all without exception all without question are so But what Revelations are simply and absolutely necessary to be proposed to the beliefe of Christians so that that Society which does propose and indeed believe them hath for matter of Faith the essence of a true Church that which does not has not Now to this question though not to yours D. Potter's assertion if it be true is apparently very pertinent And though not a full and totall satisfaction to it yet very effectuall and of great moment towards it For the main question being what points are necessary to Salvation and points necessary to Salvation being of two sorts some of simple belief some of Practise and obedience he that gives you a sufficient summary of the first sort of necessary points hath brought you halfe way towards your journies end And therefore that which he does is no more to be slighted as vain and impertinent then an Architects work is to be thought impertinent towards the making of a house because he does it not all himselfe Sure I am if his assertion be true as I believe it is a corollary may presently be deduced from it which if it were imbraced cannot in all reason but doe infinite service both to the truth of Christ and the peace of Christendome For seeing falsehood and errour could not long stand against the power of truth were they not supported by tyranny and worldly advantages he that could assert Christians to that liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must needs doe Truth a most Heroicall service And seeing the over-valuing of the differences among Christians is one of the greatest maintainers of the Schisme of Christendome he that could demonstrate that only these points of Beliefe are simply necessary to salvation wherein Christians generally agree should he not lay a very faire and firme foundation of the peace of Christendome Now the Corollary which I conceive would produce these good effects and which flowes naturally from D. Potters Assertion is this That what Man or Church soever beleeves the Creed and all the evident consequences of it sincerely and heartily cannot possibly if also he beleeve the Scripture be in any Errour of simple beleife which is offensiue to God nor therefore deserve for any such Errour to be deprived of his life or to be cut off from the Churches Communion and the hope of Salvation And the production of this againe would be this which highly concernes the Church of Rome to think of That whatsoever Man or Church does for any errour of simple beleife depriue any man so qualified as aboue either of his temporall life or liuelyhood or liberty or of the Churches Communion and hope of salvation is for the first uniust cruell and tyrannous Schismaticall presumptuous and uncharitable for the second 13 Neither yet is this as you pretend to take away the necessity of beleeving those verities of Scripture which are not contained in the Creed when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture but rather to lay a necessity upon men of beleeving all things written in Scripture when once they know them to be there written For he that beleeves not all knowne Divine Revelations to be true how does he believe in God Vnlesse you will say that the same man at the same time may not believe God and yet believe in him The greater difficulty is how it will not take away the necessity of beleeving Scripture to be the word of God But that it will not neither For though the Creed be granted a sufficient summary of Articles of meere Faith yet no man pretends that it containes the Rules of obedience but for them all men are referred to Scripture Besides he that pretends to believe in God obligeth himselfe to beleeve it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the Will of God Now reason will assure him that beleeves the Creed that it is the Will of God he should beleeve the Scripture even the very same Reason which moves him to beleeve the Creed Vniversall and never failing Tradition having given this Testimony both to Creed and Scripture that they both by the works of God were sealed testified to be the words of God And thus much be spoken in Answere to your first Argument the length whereof will be the more excusable If I oblige my self to say but little to the Rest. 14 I come then to your second And in Answer to it denie flatly as a thing destructive of it self that any Errour can be damnable unlesse it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it self or by accident to some Truth for the matter of it fundamentall And to your example of Pontius Pilat's being Iudge of Christ I say the deniall of it in him that knowes it to be revealed by God is manifestly destructive of this fundamentall truth that all Divine Revelations are true Neither will you find any errour so much as by accident damnable but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us by a reall beleif of all Fundamentals and simply necessary Truths And I desire you would reconcile with this that which you have said § 15. Every Fundamentall Errour must have a contrary Fundamentall Truth because of two Contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true c. 15 To the Third I Answer That the certainty I have of the Creed That it was from the Apostles and containes the principles of Faith I ground it not upon Scripture and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present much lesse of your Church but upon the Authority of the Ancient Church and written Tradition which as D. Potter hath proved gave this constant Testimony unto it Besides I tell you it is guilty of the same fault which D. Potter's Assertion is here accused of having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false but none at all to shew it impertinent 16 To the Fourth I Answer plainly thus That you finde fault with D. Potter for his Vertues you are offended with him for not usurping the Authority which he hath not in a word for not playing the Pope Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter it is for doing it too much and not too little This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God the speciall senses of men upon the generall words of God and laying them upon mens consciences together under the equall penaltie of death and damnation this Vaine conceit that we can speak of the things of God better then in the word of God This Deifying our owne Interpretations and Tyrannous inforcing them upon others This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality and the understandings of men from that liberty wherein Christ and Apostles
communicating with the Bishop of Rome to communicate with whom was ever taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured signe of being a true Catholique They had also as S. Augustine 〈◊〉 a pretended Church in the house and territory of a Spanish Lady called Lucilla who went flying out of the Catholique Church because she had been justly checked by Caecilianus And the same Saint speaking of the conference he had with Fortunius the Donatist saithâ— Here did he first attempt to affirme that his Communion was spread over the whole Earth c. but because the thing was evidently false they got out of this discourse by confusion of language whereby neverthelesse they sufficiently declared that they did not hold that the true Church ought necessarily to be confined to one place but only by meere necessity were forced to yield that it was so in fact because their Sect which they held to be the only true Church was not spread over the world In which point Fortunius and the rest were more modest then he who should affirme that Luther's reformation in the very beginning was spread over the whole Earth being at that time by many degrees not so farre diffused as the Sect of the Douâ—tists I have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with Donatists by remembring that the Sect of these men was begun and promoted by the passion of Lucilla and who is ignorant what influence two women the Mother and Daughter ministred to Protestancy in England Nor will I stand to observe their very likenes of phrase with the Donatists who called the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot which is D. Potter's owne phrase wherein he is lesse excusable then they because he maintaineth her to be a true Church of Christ and therefore let him duely ponder these words of S. Augustine against the Dâ—â—atists If I persecute him iustly who detracts from his Neighbour why should I not persecute him who detracts from the Church of Christ and saith this is not she but this is an Harlot And least of all will I consider whether you may not be well compared to one Ticonius a Donatist who wrote against Pâ—rmenianus likewise a Donatist who blasphemed that the Church of Christ had perished as you doe even in this your Book writ against some of your Protestant Brethren or as you call them Zeloâ—s among you who hold the very same or rather a worse Heresie and yet remained among them even after Parmenianus had excommunicated him as those your Zealous Brethren would proceed against you if it were in their power and yet like Ticonius you remain in their Communion and come not into that Church which is hath been and shall ever be universall For which very cause S. Augustin complaines of Ticonius that although he wrote against the Donatists yet he was of an hart so extreamly absurd as not to forsake them altogether And speaking of the same thing in another place he observes that although Tiâ—onius did manifestly confute them who affirmed that the Church had perished yet he saw not saith this holy Father that which in good consequence he should have seen that those Christians of Africa belonged to the Church spread over the whole world who remained vnited not with them who were divided from the communion and vnity of the same world but with such as did communicate with the whole world But Parmenianus and the rest of the Donatists saw that consequence and resolved rather to settle their mind in obstinacy against the most manifest truth which Ticoâ—us maintained then by yeelding thereto to be overcome by those Churches in Africa which enioyed the Communion of that vnity which Ticonius defended from which they had divided themselves How fitly these words agree to Catholiques in England in respect of the Protestants I desire the Reader to consider But thesâ— and the like resemblances of Protestants to the Donatists I willingly let passe and only vrge the main point That since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was because so forsooth they will needs have it in the Apostles time they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true and unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O bâ—asphemy◠〈◊〉 Harlot Moreover the same heresy followes out of the doctrine of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every errour against any one revealed truth is Heresy and damnable whether the matter bee otherwise of it selfe great or small And how can the Church more truely be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by any act of Heresy all divine faith is lost and to imagine a true Church of faithfull persons without any faith is as much as to fancy a living man without life It is therefore cleere that Donatist-like they hold that the Church of Christ perished yea they are worse then the Donatists who saâ—d that the Church remained at least in Africa whereas Protestants must of necessity be forced to grant that for along space before Luther she was no where at all But let us goe forward to other reasons 18 The holy Scripture and Ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the Visible Church as a mark of Heresie according to that of S. Iohâ— They went out from us And Some who went out from us And Out of you shall arise men speaking perverse things And accordingly Vincentius Lyrinensis saith Who ever began heresies who did not first separate himself from the Vniversality Antiquity and Consent of the Catholique Church But it is manifest that when Luther appeared there was no visible Church distinct from the Roman out of which she could depart as it is likewise well knowne that Luther and his followers departed out of her Therefore she is no way lyable to this Mark of Heresie but Protestants cannot possibly avoid it To this purpose S. Prosper hath these pithy words A Christian communicating with the universall Church is a Catholique and he who is divided from her is an Heretique and Antichrist But Luther in his first Reformation could not communicate with the visible Catholique Church of those times because he began his Reformation by opposing the supposed Errors of the then visible Church we must therefore say with S. Prosper that he was an Heretique c. Which like-likewise is no lesse cleerely proved out of S. Cypriâ—n saying Not we g departed from them but they from us and since Heresies and Schismes are bred afterwards while they make to themselves divers Conventicles they have forsakeâ— the head and origen of Truth 19 And that we might not remain doubtfull what separation it is which is the marke of Heresy the ancient Fathers tell us more in particular that it
they must of necessity affirme heretically with the Donatists that the true unspotted Church of Christ perished and that she which remained on earth was O Blasphemy anharlot By which words it seemes you are resolute perpetually to confound True and Vnspotted and to put no difference between a corrupted Church and none at all But what is this but to make no difference betwen a diseased and a dead man Nay what is it but to contradict your selves who cannot deny but that sinnes are as great staines and spots and deformities in the sight of God as errors and confesse your Church to be a congregation of men whereof every particular not one excepted and consequently the generality which is nothing but a collection of them is polluted and defiled with sinne You proceed 19 But say you The same heresy followes out of D. Potter and other Protestants that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall because we have shewed that every error against any revealed truth is Heresy and Damnable whether the matter be great or small And how can the Church more truly be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine damnable Heresy Besides we will hereafter prove that by every act of Heresy all divine faith is lost to maintaine a true Church without any faith is to fansy a living man without life Ans. what you have said before hath been answered before and what you shall say hereafter shall be confuted hereafter But if it be such a certain ground that every error against any one revealed truth is a damnable Heresy Then I hope I shall have your leave to subsume That the Dominicans in your account must hold a damnable heresy who hold an error against the immaculate Conception which you must needs esteeme a revealed truth or otherwise why are you so urgent and importunate to have it defined seeing your rule is nothing may be defined unlesse it be first revealed But without your leave I will make bold to conclude that if either that or the contrary assertion be a revealed truth you or they choose you whether must without contradiction hold a damnable Heresy if this ground be true that every contradiction of a revealed Truth is such And now I dare say for fear of inconvenience you will beginne to temper the crudenesse of your former assertion and tell us that neither of you are Heretiques because the Truth against which you erre though revealed is not sufficiently propounded And so say I neither is your Doctrine which Protestants contradict sufficiently propounded For though it be plain enough that your Church proposeth it yet still methinkes it is as plain that your Churche's proposition is not sufficient and I desire you would not say but prove the contrary Lastly to your Question How can the Church more truly be said to perish then when she is permitted to maintaine a damnable Heresy I Answer she may be more truly said to perish when she is not only permitted to doe so but defacto doth maintaine a damnable Heresy Again she may be more truly said to perish when she falls into an Heresy which is not only damnable in it selfe and ex natura rei as you speak but such an Heresy the belief of whose contrary Truth is necessary not only necessitate praecepti but medii and therefore the heresy so absolutely and indispensably destructive of salvation that no ignorance can excuse it nor any generall repentance without a dereliction of it can begge a pardon for it Such an heresy if the Church should fall into it might be more truly said to perish then if it fell only into some heresy of its own nature damnable For in that state all the members of it without exception all without mercy must needs perish for ever In this although those that might see the truth would not cannot upon any good ground hope for Salvation yet without question it might send many soules to heaven who would gladly have embrac'd the truth but that they wanted means to discover it Thirdly and lastly shee may yet more truly bee said to perish when shee Apostates from Christ absolutely or rejects even those Truths out of which her Heresies may bee reformed as if shee should directly deny Iesus to be the Christ or the Scripture to be the Word of God Towards which state of Perdition it may well be feared that the Church of Rome doth somewhat incline by her superinducing upon the rest of her errors the Doctrine of her own infallibility whereby her errors are made incurable and by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrine and not her doctrine to be judg'd of by Scripture whereby she makes the Scripture uneffectuall for her Reformation 20 Ad § 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and ancient Fathers doe assigne Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie for I was in good hope that no Christian would so bely the Scripture as to say so of it unlesse hee could have produced some one Text at least wherein this was plainly affirmed or from whence it might be undoubtedly and undeniably collected For assure your selfe good Sir it is a very haynous crime to say thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so I expected therefore some Scripture should haue been alleaged wherein it should haue beene said whosoever separates from the Roman Church is an Heretique or the Roman Church is infallible or the Guide of faith or at least There shall be alwaies some visible Church infallible in matters of faith Some such direction as this I hoped for And I pray consider whether I had not reason The Evangelists and Apostles who wrote the New Testament we all suppose were good men and very desirous to direct us the surest and plainest way to heaven wee suppose them likewise very sufficiently instructed by the Spirit of God in all the necessary points of the Christian faith and therefore certainly not ignorant of this Vnum Necessarium this most necessary point of all others without which as you pretend and teach all faith is no Faith that is that the Church of Rome was designed by God the Guide of Faith Wee suppose thē lastly wise men especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdome and such as knew that a doubtfull questionable Guide was for mens direction as good as none at all And after all these suppositions which I presume no good Christian will call into question is it possible that any Christian heart can believe that not One amongst them all should ad rei memoriam write this necessary doctrine plainly so much as once Certainly in all reason they had provided much better for the good of Christians if they had wrote this though they had writ nothing else Me thinks the Evangelists undertaking to write the Gospell of Christ could not possibly haue omitted any One of them this most necessary point of
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
Protestants which are dissembled by you and not put into the ballance Know then Sir that when I say The Religion of Protestants is in prudence to be preferr'd before yours as on the one side I doe not understand by your Religion the doctrine of Bellarmine or Baronius or any other privat man amongst you nor the Doctrine of the Sorbon or of the Iesuits or of the Dominicans or of any other particular Company among you but that wherein you all agree or professe to agree the Doctrine of the Councell of Trent so accordingly on the other side by the Religion of Protestants I doe not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechisme of Heidelberg nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherin they all agree and which they all subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect rule of their Faith and Actions that is The BIBLE The BIBLE I say The BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants Whatsoever else they believe besides it and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of it well may they hold it as a matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it themselves nor require the beliefe of it of others without most high and most Schismaticall presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe hope impartiall search of the true way to eternall happinesse doe professe plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councells against Councells some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one age against a Consent of Fathers of another age the Church of one age against the Church of another age Traditive interpretations of Scripture are pretended but there are few or none to be found No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it selfe from the fountain but may be plainly prov'd either to have been brought in in such an age after Christ or that in such an age it was not in In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon This therefore and this only I have reason to believe This I will professe according to this I will live and for this if there be occasion I will not only willingly but even gladly loose my life though I should be sorry that Christians should take it from me Propose me any thing out of this book and require whether I believe it or no and seeme it never so incomprehensible to humane reason I will subscribe it with hand and heart as knowing no demonstration can be stronger then this God hath said so therefore it is true In other things I will take no mans liberty of judgement from him neither shall any man take mine from me I will think no man the worse man nor the worse Christian I will love no man the lesse for differing in opinion from me And what measure I meat to others I expect from them again I am fully assured that God does not and therefore that men ought not to require any more of any man then this To believe the Scripture to be Gods word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it 57 This is the Religion which I have chosen after a long deliberation and I am verily perswaded that I have chosen wisely much more wisely thē if I had guided my selfe according to your Churches authority For the Scripture being all true I am secur'd by believing nothing else that I shall believe no falshood as matter of Faith And if I mistake the sense of Scripture and so fall into error yet am I secure from any danger thereby if but your grounds be true because endeavouring to finde the true sense of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without pertinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more true and a more probable sense shall appear unto mee And then all necessary truth being as I have prov'd plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing Scripture to believe all necessary Truth And he that does so if his life be answerable to his faith how is it possible he should faile of Salvation 58 Besides whatsoever may be pretended to gain to your Church the credit of a Guide all that much more may be said for the Scripture Hath your Church been ancient The Scripture is more ancient Is your Church a meanes to keep men at vnity So is the Scripture to keep those that believe it and wil obey it in unity of belief in matters necessary or very profitable and in unity of Charity in points unnecessary Is your Church universall for time or place Certainly the Scripture is more universall For all the Christians in the world those I mean that in truth deserve this name doe now and alwaies have believed the Scripture to be the word of God whereas only you say that you only are the Church of God all Christians besides you deny it 59 Thirdly following the Scripture I follow that whereby you prove your Churches infallibility whereof were it not for Scripture what pretence could you have or what notion could we have and by so doing tacitely confesse that your selves are surer of the truth of the Scripture then of your Churches authority For we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proved otherwise it is no proofe 60 Fourthly following the Scripture I follow that which must be true if your Church be true for your Church gives attestation to it Whereas if I follow your Church I must follow that which though Scripture be true may be false nay which if Scripture be true must be false because the Scripture testifies against it 61 Fiftly to follow the Scripture I have Gods expresse warrant and command and no colour of any prohibition But to believe your Church infallible I have no cōmand at all much lesse an expresse cōmand Nay I have reason to fear that I am prohibited to doe so in these words call no man Master on earth They fell by infidelity Thou standest by faith Bee not high minded but feare The spirit of truth The world cannot receive 62 Following your Church I must hold many things not only above reason but against it if any thing be against it whereas following the Scripture I shall believe many mysteries but no impossibilities many things above reason but nothing against it many things which had they not been reveal'd reason could never have discover'd but nothing which by true reason may be confuted many things which reason cannot comprehend how they can be but nothing which reason can comprehend that it cannot be Nay I shall believe nothing which reason will not
men and deducing according to the never failing rules of Logick consequent deductions from them if this be it which you mean by discourse it is very meet reasonable necessary that men as in all their actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to happinesse should be left unto it and he that followes this in all his opinions and actions and does not only seeme to doe so followes alwaies God whereas he that followeth a Company of men may oftimes follow a company of beasts And in saying this I say no more then S. Iohn to all Christians in these words Dearly beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God or no and the rule he gives them to make this tryall by is to consider whether they confesse Iesus to be the Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their actions no◠whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more then S. Paul in exhorting all Christians to try all things and to hold fast that which is good then S. Peter in cōmanding all Christians to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them then our Saviour himselfe in forewarning all his followers that if they blindly followed blind guides both leaders and followers should fall into the ditch and again in saying even to the people Yea why of your selves iudge ye not what is right And though by passion or precipitation or preiudice by want of reason or not using that they have men may be and are oftentimes led into error and mischiefe yet that they cannot be misguided by discourse truly so called such as I have described you your selfe have given them security For what is discourse but drawing conclusions out of premises by good consequence Now the principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be infallibly true And you have told us in the fourth chap. of this Pamphlet that from truth no man can by good consequence inferre falshood Therefore by discourse no man can possibly be led to error but if he erre in his conclusions he must of necessity either erre in his principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his discourse that is indeed not discourse but seeme to doe so 13 You say thirdly with sufficient confidence that if the true Church may erre in defining what Scriptures be Canonicall or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the privat Spirit or else naturall wit and iudgement and by them examine what Scriptures containe true or false doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or reiected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proofe of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly erre in her judgement touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the privat spirit and the examination of the contents which latter way may conclude the negative very strongly to wit that such or such a book cannot come from God because it containes irreconcileable contradictions but the affirmative it cannot conclude because the contents of a book may be all true and yet the book not written by divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three that is the testimony of the Primitive Christians 14 You say Fourthly with convenient boldnesse That this infallible Authority of your Church being denied no man can be assur'd that any parcell of Scripture was written by Divine inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proofe is pretended and besides void of modesty and full of impiety The first because the experience of innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assur'd that the Scripture is divinely inspir'd and yet deny the infallible authority of your Church or any other The second because if◠I cannot have ground to be assur'd of the divine authority of Scripture unlesse I first believe your Church infallible then I can have no ground at all to believe it because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe your Church infallible unlesse I first beleeve the Scripture divine 15 Fiftly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the infallible authority of your Church but he must abandon all infus'd faith and true religion if he doe but understand him selfe Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of your hearts you speak very often That all Christians besides you are open Fooles or conceal'd Atheists All this you say with notable confidence as the manner of Sophisters is to place their confidence of prevailing in their confident manner of speaking but then for the evidence you promised to maintaine this confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible 16 Had I a mind to recriminate now and to charge Papists as you doe Protestants that they lead men to Socinianisme I could certainly make a much fairer shew of evidence then you have done For I would not tell you you deny the infallibility of the Church of England ergo you lead to Socinianisme which yet is altogether as good an Argument as this Protestants deny the infallibility of the Roman Church ergo they induce Socinianisme Nor would I resume my former Argument and urge you that by holding the Popes infallibility you submit your selfe to that capitall and Mother Heresy by advantage whereof he may lead you at ease to believe vertue vice and vice vertue to believe Antichristianity Christianisme and Christianity Antichristian he may lead you to Socinianisme to Turcisme nay to the Divell himselfe if he have a mind to it But I would shew you that divers waies the Doctors of your Church doe the principall and proper work of the Socinians for the undermining the Doctrine of the Trinity by denying it to be supported by those pillars of the Faith which alone are fit and able to support it I mean Scripture and the Consent of the ancient Doctors 17 For Scripture your men deny very plainly and frequently that this Doctrine can be proved by it See if you please this plainly taught and urged very earnestly by Cardinall Hosius De Author Sac. Scrip. l. 3. p. 53. By Gordonius Huntlaeus Contr. Tom. 1. Controv. 1. De verbo Dei C. 19. by Gretserus and Tanerus in Colloquio Ratesbon And also by Vega Possevin Wiekus and Others 18 And then for the Consent of the Ancients that that also delivers it not by whom are we taught but by Papists only Who is it that makes known to all the world that Eusebius that great searcher and devourer of the Christian libraries was an Arrian Is it not your great Achilles Cardinall Perron in his 3. Book 2. Chap. of his Reply to K. Iames Who is it that informs us that Origen who never was questioned for any error in this matter in or
that there is but one true Church that all Christians are obliged to harken to her that shee must be ever visible and infallible that to separate ones selfe from her communion is Schisme and to dissent from her doctrine is Heresie though it be in points never so few or never so small in their own nature and therefore that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is wholy vaine as it is applied by Protestants These I say and some other generall grounds Charity Mistaken handles and out of them doth cleerely evince that any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation on both sides and therefore since it is apparent that Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without repentance and consequently as we hold that Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation so must they also believe that we cannot be saved if they judge their own Religion to be true and ours to be false And whosoever disguizeth this truth is an enemy to soules which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of salvation indifferent Faiths and Religions And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly according to that which appeares to have been his designe which was not to descend to particular disputes as D. Potter affectedly does namely Whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ and much lesse whether Generall Councells be infallible whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church whether he be above a Generall Councell whether all points of faith be contained in Scripture whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church as into his last formall Object and Motive and least of all did he discourse of Images Communion under both kinds publique service in an unknown Tongue Seven Sacraments Sacrifice of the Masse Indulgences and Index Expurgatorius all which and divers other articles D. Potter as I said drawes by violence into his Book and he might as well have brought in Pope Ioan or Antichrist or the Iewes who are permitted to live in Rome which are common Themes for men that want better matter as D. Potter was forced to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies that so he might dazle the eyes and distract the mind of the Reader and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole Answere he uttered nothing to the purpose and point in question which if he had followed closely I dare well say he might have dispatched his whole Book in two or three sheets of paper But the truth is he was loath to affirme plainely that generally both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved and yet seeing it to be most evident that Protestants cannot pretend to have any true Church before Luther except the Roman and such as agreed with her and consequently that they cannot hope for Salvation if they deny it to us he thought best to avoid this difficulty by confusion of language and to fill up his Book with points which make nothing to the purpose Wherein he is lesse excusable because he must graunt that those very particulars to which he digresseth are not fundamentall errors though it should be granted that they be errors which indeed are Catholique verities For since they be not fundamentall not destructive of salvation what imports it whether we hold them or no for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved 3 In one thing only he will perhaps seeme to have touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall because some may thinke that a difference in points which are not fundamentall breakes not the Vnity of Faith and hinders not the hope of salvation in persons so disagreeing And yet in this very distinction he never speaks to the purpose indeed but only saies that there are some points so fundamentall as that all are obliged to know and believe them explicitely but never tells us whether there be any other points of faith which a man may deny or disbelieve though they be sufficiently presented to his understanding as truths revealed or testified by almighty God which was the only thing in question For if it be damnable as certainly it is to deny or disbelieve any one truth witnessed by almighty God though the thing be not in it self of any great consequence or moment and since of two disagreeing in matters of faith one must necessarily deny some such truth it clearly followes that amongst men of different Faiths or Religions one only can be saved though their difference consist of divers or but even one point which is not in his own nature fundamentall as I declare at large in divers places of my first part So that it is cleere D. Potter even in this his last refuge and distinction never comes to the point in question to say nothing that he himselfe doth quite overthrow it and plainly contradict his whole designe as I shew in the third Chapter of my first Part. 4 And as for D. Potters manner of handling those very points which are utterly beside the purpose it consists only in bringing vulgar mean objections which have been answered a thousand times yea and some of them are cleerely answered even in Charity Mistaken but he takes no knowledge at all af any such answeres and much lesse doth he apply himselfe to confute them He alleadgeth also Authors with so great corruption and fraud as I would not have believed if I had not found it by cleere and frequent experience In his second Edition he hath indeed left out one or two grosse corruptions amongst many others no lesse notorious having as it seemes been warned by some friends that they could not stand with his credit but even in this his second Edition he retracts them not at all nor declares that he was mistaken in the First and so his reader of the first Edition shall ever be deceived by him though withall he read the Second For preventing of which inconvenience I have thought it necessary to take notice of them and to discover them in my Reply 5. And for conclusion of this point I will only say that D. Potter might well have spared his paines if he had ingeniously acknowledged where the whole substance yea and sometime the very words and phrases of his book may be found in farre briefer manner namely in a Sermon of D. Vshers preached before our late soveraigne Lord King Iames the 20. of Iune 1624. at Wansted containing A Declaration of the Vniversality of the Church of Christ and the Vnity of Faith professed therein which Sermon having been roundly and wittily confuted by a Catholike Divine under the name of Paulus Veridicus within the compasse of about 4. sheets of Paper D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken was in effect confuted before it appeared And this may suffice for a generall Censure of his Answere to Charity Mistaken 6 For the second touching my Reply if you wonder at the Bulke
not by testimony of the private spirit which faith he being private and secret is unfit to teach and refell others but as he acknowledgeth by the Ecclesiasticall Tradition An argument saith he whereby may be argued and convinced what books be Canonicall and what be not Luther saith This indeed the Church hath that she can discerne the word of God from the word of men as Augustine confesseth that he believed the Gospell being moved by the authority of the Church which did preach this to be the Gospell Fulk teacheth that the Church hath judgement to discerne true writings from counterfeit and the word of God from the writing of men and that this iudgement she hath not of her selfe but of the Holy Ghost And to the end that you my not be ignorant from what Church you must receive Scriptures hear your first Patriarch Luther speaking against them who as he saith brought in Anabaptisme that so they might despight the Pope Verily saith he these men build upon a weak foundation For by this means they ought to deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For all these we have from the Pope otherwise we must go make a new Scripture 8 But now in deeds they all make good that without the Churches authority no certainty can be had what Scripture is Canonicall while they cannot agree in assigning the Canon of holy Scripture Of the Epistle of S. Iames Luther hath these words The Epistle of Iames is contentious swelling dry strawy and unworthy of an Apostolicall Spirit Which censure of Luther Illyricus acknowledgeth and maintaineth Kemnitins teacheth that the second Epistle of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle to the Hebrewes the Epistle of Iames the Epistle of Iude and the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall as not having sufficient Testimony of their authority and therefore that nothing in controversy can be proved out of these Bookes The same is taught by divers other Lutherans and if some other amongst them be of a contrary opinion since Luther's time I wonder what new infallible ground they can alleage why they leaue their Master and so many of his prime Schollers I knâ—w no better ground then because they may with as much freedome abandon him as hee was bold to alter that Canon of Scripture which he found receaved in Gods Church 9 What Bookes of Scripture the Protestants of England hold for Canonicall is not easie to affirme In their sixt Article they say In the name of the holy Scripture who doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church What meane they by these words That by the Churches consent they are assured what Scriptures be Canonicall This were to make the Church Iudge and not Scriptures alone Doe they only understand the agreement of the Church to be a probable inducement Probability is no sufficient ground for an infallible assent of faith By this rule of whose authority was NEVER any doubt in the Church the whole book of Esther must quit the Canon because some in the Church haue excluded it from the Canon as Melito Asianus Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen And Luther if Protestanis will be content that he be in the Church saith The Iewes place the book of Esther in the Canon which yet if I might be Iudge doth rather deserve to bee put out of the Canon And of Ecclesiastes he saith This book is not full there are in it many abrupt things he wants boots and spurres that is he hath no perfect sentence hee rides upon a long reed like me when I was in the Monastery And much more is to be read in him who saith further that the said book was not written by Salomon but by Syrach in the time of the Machabees and that it is like to the Talmud the Iewes bible out of many bookes heaped into one worke perhaps out of the Library of king Ptolomeus And further he saith that he doth not belieue all to haue been done as there is set downe And he reacheth the booke of Iob to be as it were an argument for a fable or Comedy to set before us an example of Patience And he delivers this generall censure of the Prophets Books The Sermons of no Prophet were written whole and perfect but their Disciples and Auditors snatched now one sentence and then another and so put them all into one book and by this meanes the Bible was conserved If this were so the Books of the Prophets being not written by themselues but promiscuously and casually by their Disciples will soone be called in question Are not these errours of Luther fundamentall and yet if Protestants deny the infallibility of the Church upon what certaine ground can they disproue these Lutherian and Luciferian blasphemies ô godly Reformer of the Roman Church But to returne to our English Canon of Scripture In the New Testament by the aboue mentioned rule of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church divers Books of the New Testament must be discanonized to wit all those of which some Ancients haue doubted and those which divers Lutherans haue of late denied It is worth the observation how the before-mentioned sixt Article doth specify by name all the Books of the Old Testament which they hold for Canonicall but those of the New Testament as they are commonly receaved we doe recieue and account them Canonicall The mystery is easily to be unfolded If they had descended to particulars they must haue contradicted some of their chiefest Brethren As they are commonly recieued c. I aske By whom By the Church of Rome Then by the same reason they must receiue divers Books of the Old Testament which they reject By Lutherans Then with Lutherans they may deny some Books of the New Testament If it bee the greater or lesse number of voices that must cry up or down the Canon of Scripture our Roman Canon will prevaile and among Protestants the Certainty of their Faith must be reduced to an Vncertaine Controversie of Fact whether the number of those who reject or of those others who recieue such and such Scriptures bee greater Their Faith must alter according to yeares and daies When Luther first appeared he and his Disciples were the greater number of that new Church and so this claime Of being commonly received stood for them till Zuinglius and Calvin grew to some equall or greater number then that of the Lutherans and then this rule of Commonly received will canonize their Canon against the Lutherans I would gladly know why in the former part of their Article they say both of the Old and New Testament In the name of the holy Scripture we doe understand those Canonicall Books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church and in the latter part speaking againe
back reiected it as the Protestant Writers Hospinianus and Lavatherus witnesse The translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Divines of Basil is reproved by Beza who affirmeth that the Basil Translation is in many places wicked and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost The translation of Castalio is condemned by Beza as being sacrilegious wicked and Ethnicall As concerning Calvins translation that learned Protestant Writer Carolus Molineus saith thereof Calvin in his Harmony maketh the text of the Gospell to leap up and down he useth violence to the letter of the Gospell and besides this addeth to the Text. As touching Bezas translation to omit the dislike had thereof by Selneccerus the German Protestant of the Vniversity of Iena the foresaid Molinaeus saith of him de facto mutat textum he actually changeth the text and giveth farther sundry instances of his corruptions as also Castalio that learned Calvinist and most learned in the tongues reprehendeth Beza in a whole book of this matter and saith that to note all his errours in translation would require a great volume And M. Parkes saith As for the Geneva Bibles it is to be wished that either they may be purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margent or else utterly prohibited All which confirmeth your Maiesties grave and learned Censure in your thinking the Geneva translation to be worst of all and that in the Marginall notes annexed to the Geneva translation some are very partiall untrue seditious c. Lastly concerning the English Translation the Puritans say Our translation of the Psalmes comprized in our Book of Common Prayer doth in addition subtraction and alteration differ from the Truth of the Hebrew in two hundred places at the least In so much as they doe therefore professe to rest doubtfull whether a man with a safe conscience may subscribe thereunto And M. Carlile saith of the English Translators that they have depraved the sense obscured the truth and deceived the ignorant that in many places they doe detort the Scriptures from the right sense And that they shew themselves to love darknesse more then light falshood more then truth And the Ministers of Lincolne Diocesse give their publike testimony terming the English Translation A Translation that taketh away from the Text that addeth to the Text and that sometime to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost Not without cause therefore did your Majesty affirme that you could never yet see a Bible well translated into English Thus farre the Author of the Protestants Apology c. And I cannot forbear to mention in particular that famous corruption of Luther who in the Text where it is said Rom. 3. v. 28. We accompt a man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law in favour of Iustification by faith alone translateth Iustified by faith ALONE As likewise the falsification of Zuinglius is no lesse notorious who in the Gospels of S. Matthew Mark and Luke and in S. Paul in place of This is my Body This is my Blood translates This signifies my Body This signifies my bloâ—d And here let Prorestants consider duely of these points Salvation cannot be hoped for without true faith Faith according to them relies upon Scripture alone Scripture must be delivered to most of them by the Translations Translations depend on the skill and honesty of men in whom nothing is more certain then a most certain possibility to erre and no greater evidence of truth then that it is evident some of them imbrace falshood by reason of their contrary translations What then remaineth but that truth faith salvation and all must in them rely upon a fallible and uncertain ground How many poore soules are lamentably seduced while from preaching Ministers they admire a multitude of Texts of divine Scripture but are indeed the false translations and corruptions of erring men Let them therefore if they will be assured of true Scriptures fly to the alwaies visible Catholique Church against which the gates of hell can never so farre prevaile as that she shall be permitted to deceive the Christian world with false Scriptures And Luther himselfe by unfortunate experience was at length forced to confesse thus much saying If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the decrees of Councels and to have recourse to them by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now raigne On the contrary side the Translation approved by the Roman Church is commended even by our adversaries and D. Covel in particular saith that it was used in the Church one thousand three hundred yeares agoe and doubteth not to prefer that Translation before others In so much that whereas the English translations be many and among themselves disagreeing he concludeth that of all those the approved translation authorized by the Church of England is that which commeth nearest to the vulgar and is commonly called the Bishops Bible So that the truth of that translation which we use must be the rule to judge of the goodnesse of their Bibles and therefore they are obliged to maintain our Translation if it were but for their own sake 17 But doth indeed the source of their manifold uncertainties stop here No The chiefest difficulty remaines concerning the true meaning of Scripture for attaining whereof if Protestants had any certainty they could not disagree so hugely as they doe Hence M. Hooker saith We are right sure of this that Nature Scripture and Experience have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions by submitting it selfe unto some iudiciall and definitive sentence whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence refuse to stand D. Fields words are remarkable to this purpose Seeing saith he the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in nature so intricate that few have time and leasure fewer strength of understanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which among all the societies in the world is that blessed company of holy ones that houshold of Faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her communion follow her directions and rest in her iudgement 18 And now that the true Interpretation of Scripture ought to be received from the Church it is also proved by what we have already demonstrated that she it is who must declare what Bookes be true Scripture wherein if she be assisted by the Holy Ghost why should we not believe her to be infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of them Let Protestants therefore either bring some proofe out of Scripture that the Church is guided by the Holy Ghost in discerning true Scripture and not in delivering the true sense thereof Or else give us leave to apply against
there was no Scripture or written word for about two thousand yeares from Adam to Moyses whom all acknowledge to haue been the first Author of Canonicall Scripture And againe for about two thousand yeares more from Moyses to Christ our Lord holy Scripture was only among the people of Israel and yet there were Gentiles endued in those daies with divine Faith as appeareth in Iob and his friends Wherefore during so many ages the Church alone was the Decider of Controversies and Instructer of the faithfull Neither did the word written by Moyses depriue the Church of her former Infallibility or other qualities requisite for a Judge yea D. Potter acknowledgeth that besides the Law there was a living Iudge in the Iewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in cases of moment as all points belonging to divine Faith are Now the Church of Christ our Lord was before the Scriptures of the New Testament which were not written instantly nor all at one time but successiuely upon severall occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently knowne to all Churches and of some there was doubt in the Church for some Ages after our Saviour Shall we then say that according as the Church by little and little received holy Scripture she was by the like degrees devested of her possessed Infallibility and power to decide CoÌ„troversies in Religion That some time Churches had one Iudge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or yeares as new Canonicall Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of faith or Iudge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in Gods Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibilitie either to write new Canonicall Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent heresies or infallibilitie to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistants of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soule is before the letter and speech before Bookes and sense before stile Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or subtraction from the former power and infallibilitie of the Church would haue brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost then gained by holy Scripture which ought to be far from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies infallibilitie setled in a living Iudge is incomparably more usefull and fit then if it were conceived as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility in the Church and Existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Must the Church wax dry by giving to her Children the milke of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived from an inexhausted fountaine If Protestants will haue the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibilitie went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is still endued with infallibility in points fundamentall and consequently that infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the truth the sanctity yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to Salvation I would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagineth that the Church by the comming of Scripture was deprived of infallibility in some points and not in others He affirmeth that the Iewish Synagogue retained infallibility in her selfe notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so unworthily and unjustly depriue the Church of Christ of infallibilitie by reason of the New Testament Eâ—pecially if we consider that in the Old Testament Lawes Ceremonies Rites Punishments Iudgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Iewes then in the New Testament is done our Saviour leaving the determination or declaration of particulars to his Spouse the Church which therefore stands in need of infallibility more then the Iewish Synagogue D. Potter 1 against this argument drawne from the power and infallibilitie of the Synagogue objects that we might as well inferre that Christians must haue one soveraigne Prince over all because the Iewes had one chiefe Iudge But the disparitie is very cleare The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ 〈◊〉 so their civill government of Christian Common wealths or kingdomes The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Iewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a house or family to an Army to a body to a kingdome c. all which require one Master onâ— Generall one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fiet Vnm ovile joyned Vnus Pastor One sheepfold one Pastour But all distinct kingdomes or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to salvation that all haue recourse to one Church but for temporall weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporall Prince kingdome or Common-wealth and therefore our Saviour hath left to his whole Church as being One one Law one Scripture the same Sacraments c. Whereas kingdomes haue their severall Lawes different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Iewes there was one Power and Iudge to end debates and resolue difficulties so in the Church of Christ which is One there must be some one Authority to decide all Controversies in Religion 24 This discourse is excellently proved by ancient S. Irenaeus in these words What if the Apostles had not left Scriptures ought we not to haue followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yeeld ossent who belieue in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the spirit of God without letters or Iuke and diligently keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receiue the truth from Gods Church seeing the Apostles haue most fully deposited in her as in a rich storehouse all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought wee not to haue recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receiue what is certaine and cleare concerning the present question 25 Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructiue of it selfe For either they have certaine and infallible meanes not to erre in interpreting Scripture or they haue not If not then the Scripture to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible faith nor a meet Iudge of Controversies If they hâ—ue certaine infallible meanes and so cannot erre in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to
you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable then our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand againe some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands untill you settle me upon a Rock I mean giue such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Vniversall Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receiue it is For wee doe not professe our selues so absolutely and and undoubtedly certain neither doe we urge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue 46 The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it selfe alone but by some extrinsecall authority Which you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of Vniversall Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospell of Saint Mathew is the word of God as that all which your Church saies is true 47 That Believers of the Scripture by considering the divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures divine Authority that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internall arguments haue their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the fountain of goodnesse as the Miracles by which it was confirm'd were great I should want one main pillar of my faith and for want of it I feare should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is hee is moved to and strengthned in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrell with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true◠as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy unconcern'd You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffred you to haue said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48 In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes so the Scripture onely to those that haue the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture doe moue and determine our Vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must bee before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else then the Vnderstanding's assent And therefore upon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presuppos'd before the assent of faith unto which it moues and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it selfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the understanding to assent that is to belieue them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus◠Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soule that is the Vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it selfe is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moues the understanding to assent The Vnderstanding that 's the eye and object on which it works must bee before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moues and the understanding is mov'd which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture doe that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a Sonne that he hath already Or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can bee made againe before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such Monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of Errour will easily perceiue that I am factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digresse 49 The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other then the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can haue faith but he must bee mou'd to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians belieue the Gospell because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly dye for it yet indeed are Infidels and belieue nothing The Scripture tells us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And who are you to take upon you to make us belieue that we doe not belieue what we know we doe But if I may think verily that I belieue the Scripture and yet not belieue it how know you that you belieue the Roman Church I am as verily and as
not so as if they did deny that some places might be translated more plainly some more properly whereof it were easy to produce innumerable examples And this he there professes to have learnt of Laines the then Generall of the Society who was a great part of that Councell present at all the Actions of it and of very great authority in it 77 To this so great authority he addes a reason of his opinion which with all indifferent men will be of a farre greater authority If the Councell saith he had purposed to approve an Edition in all respects and to make it of equall authority and credit with the Fountaines certainly they ought with exact care first to have corrected the errors of the Interpreter which certainly they did not 78 Lastly Bellarmine himselfe though he will not acknowledge any imperfection in the Vulgar Edition yet he acknowledges that the case may and does oft-times so fall out that it is impossible to discerne which is the true reading of the Vulgar Edition but only by recourse unto the Originalls and dependance upon them 79 From all which it may evidently be collected that though some of you flatter your selves with a vain imagination of the certain absolute purity and perfection of your Vulgar Edition yet the matter is not so certain and so resolved but that the best learned men amongst you are often at a stand and very doubtfull sometimes whether your Vulgar translation be true and sometimes whether this or that be your Vulgar Translatiō sometimes undoubtedly resolved that your Vulgar Translation is no true Translation nor consonant to the Originall as it was at first delivered And what thē can be alleadged but that out of your own grounds it may be inferred inforced upon you that not only in your Lay-men but your Clergy men Schollers Faith Truth and Salvation all depends upon fallible uncertain grounds And thus by ten severall retortions of this one Argument I have endeavoured to shew you how ill you have complyed with your own advise which was to take heed of urging arguments that might be return'd upon you I should now by a direct answer shew that it presseth not us at all but I have in passing done it already in the end of the second retortion of this argument and thither I referre the Reader 80 Whereas therefore you exhort them that will have assurance of true Scriptures to fly to your Church for it I desire to know if they should follow your advise how they should be assured that your Church can give them any such assurance which hath been confessedly so negligent as to suffer many whole books of Scripture to be utterly lost Again in those that remain confessedly so negligent as to suffer the Originalls of these that remain to be corrupted And lastly so carelesse of preserving the integrity of the Copies of her Translation as to suffer infinite variety of Readings to come in to them without keeping any one perfect Copy which might have been as the Standard and Polycletus his Canon to correct the rest by So that which was the true reading and which the false it was utterly undiscernable but only by comparing them with the Originalls which also she pretends to be corrupted 81 But Luther himselfe by unfortunate experience was at length enforced to confesse thus much saying If the world last longer it will be again necessary to receive the Decrees of Councells by reason of divers interpretations of Scripture which now reigne 82 And what if Luther having a Pope in his belly as he was wont to say that most men had and desiring perhaps to have his own interpretations passe without examining spake such words in heat of Argument Doe you think it reasonable that we should subscribe to Luther's divinations and angry speeches will you oblige your selfe to answer for all the assertions of your private Doctors If not why doe you trouble us with what Luther saies and what Calvin saies Yet this I say not as if these words of Luther made any thing at all for your present purpose For what if he feared or pretended to feare that the infallibility of Councells being rejected some men would fall into greater errors then were impos'd upon them by the Councells Is this to confesse that there is any present visible Church upon whose bare Authority we may infallibly receive the true Scriptures and the true sense of them Let the Reader judge But in my opinion to feare a greater inconvenience may follow from the avoiding of the lesse is not to confesse that the lesse is none at all 83 For D. Covels commending your Translation what is it to the businesse in hand or how proves it the perfection of it which is here contested any more then S. Augustine's commending the Italian Translation argues the perfection of that or that there was no necessity that S. Hierome should correct it D. Covell commends your Translation and so does the Bishop of Chichester and so does D. Iames and so doe I. But I commend it for a good Translation not for a perfect Good may be good and deserve commendations and yet better may be better And though he saies that the then approved Translation of the Church of England is that which cōmeth nearest the Vulgar yet he does not say that it agrees exactly with it So that whereas you inferre that the truth of your Translation must be the Rule to judge of the goodnesse of ours this is but a vain florish For to say of our Translations That is the best which comes nearest the Vulgar and yet it is but one man that saies so is not to say it is therefore the best because it does so For this may be true by accident and yet the truth of our Translation no way depend upon the truth of yours For had that been their direction they would not only have made a Translation that should come neere to yours but such a one which should exactly agree with it and be a Translation of your Translation 84 Ad 17. § In this Division you charge us with great uncertainty concerning the true meaning of Scripture Which hath been answered already by saying That if you speak of plain places and in such all things necessary are contained we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them neither need they any Interpreter If of obscure and difficult places we confesse we are uncertaine of the sense of many of them But then we say there is no necessity we should be certain For if Gods will had been we should haue understood him more certainly he would haue spoken more plainly And we say besides that as we are uncertain so are You too which he that doubts of let him read your Commentators upon the Bible and obserue their various and dissonant interpretations and he shall in this point need no further satisfaction 85 But seeing there are contentions among us we are taught by nature
of plain Texts of Scripture which you will not suffer him to understand Especially seeing the Decrees of divers Popes and Councells are conceived so obscurely that the Learned cannot agree about the sense of them And then they are written all in such languages which the ignorant understand not and therefore must of necessity rely herein upon the uncertain and fallible authority of some particular men who informe them that there is such a Decree And if the Decrees were translated into Vulgar languages why the Translators should not be as fallible as you say the Translators of Scripture are who can possibly imagine 109 Lastly how shall an unlearned man or indeed any man be assured of the certainty of that Decree the certainty whereof depends upon suppositions which are impossible to be known whether they be true or no For it is not the Decree of a Councell unlesse it be confirmed by a true Pope Now the Pope cannot be a true Pope if he came in by Simony which whether he did or no who can answer mee He cannot be true Pope unlesse he were baptized and baptized he was not unlesse the Minister had due Intention So likewise he cannot be a true Pope unlesse he were rightly ordained Priest and that again depends upon the Ordainers secret Intention and also upon his having the Episcopall Character All which things as I have formerly proved depend upon so many uncertain suppositions that no humane judgement can possibly be resolved in them I conclude therefore that not the learnedst man amongst you all no not the Pope himselfe can according to the grounds you goe upon have any certainty that any Decree of any Councell is good and valid and consequently not any assurance that it is indeed the Decree of a Councell 110 Ad § 20. If by a private spirit you mean a particular perswasion that a Doctrine is true which some men pretend but cannot prove to come from the spirit of God I say to referre Controversies to Scripture is not to referre them to this kind of private Spirit For is there not a manifest difference between saying the spirit of God tels me that this is the meaning of such a Text which no man can possibly know to be true it being a secret thing between saying these these Reasons I have to shew that this or that is true doctrine or that this or that is the meaning of such a Scripture Reason being a Publique and certain thing and exposed to all mens tryall and examination But now if by privat spirit you understand every mans particular Reason then your first and second inconvenience will presently be reduced to one and shortly to none at all 111 Ad § 20. And does not also giving the office of Iudicature to the Church come to conferre it upon every particular man For before any man believes the Church infallible must he not have reason to induce him to believe it to be so and must he not judge of those reasons whether they be indeed good and firme or captious and sophisticall Or would you have all men believe all your Doctrine upon the Churches infalliâ—â—â—â—â—y and the Churches infallibility they know not why 112 Secondly supposing they are to be guided by the Church they must use their own particular reason to find out which is the Church And to that purpose you your selves give a great many notes which you pretend first to be Certain notes of the Church and then to be peculiar to your Church and agreeable to none else but you doe not so much as pretend that either of those pretenses is evident of it selfe and therefore you goe about to prove them both by reasons and those reasons I hope every particular man is to judge of whether they doe indeed conclude and convince that which they are alleadged for that is that these markes are indeed certain notes of the Church and then that your Church hath them and no other 113 One of these notes indeed the only note of a true and uncorrupted Church is conformity with Antiquity I mean the most ancient Church of all that is the Primitive and Apostolique Now how is it possible any man should examine your Church by this note but he must by his own particular judgement find out what was the doctrine of the Primitive Church and what is the Doctrine of the present Church and be able to answer all these Arguments which are brought to prove repugnance between them otherwise he shall but pretend to make use of this note for the finding the true Church but indeed make no use of it but receive the Church at a venture as the most of you doe not one in a hundred being able to give any tolerable reason for it So that in stead of reducing men to particular reason you reduce them to none at all but to chance and passion and prejudice and such other waies which if they lead one to the truth they lead hundreds nay thousands to falshood But it is a pretty thing to consider how these men can blow hot and cold out of the same mouth to serve severall purposes Is there hope of gaining a Proselite Then they will tell you God hath given every man Reason to follow and if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the Ditch That it is no good reason for a mans religion that he was borne and brought up in it For then a Turke should have as much reason to be a Turke as a Christian to be a Christian. That every man hath a judgement of Discretion which if they will make use of they shall easily finde that the true Church hath alwaies such and such markes and that their Church has them and no other but theirs But then if any of theirs be perswaded to a syncere and sufficient tryall of their Church even by their own notes of it and to try whether they be indeed so conformable to Antiquity as they pretend then their note is changed you must not use your own reason nor your judgement but referre all to the Church and believe her to be conformable to Antiquity though they have no reason for it nay though they have evident reason to the contrary For my part I am certain that God hath given us our Reason to discern between Truth and Falshood and he that makes not this use of it but beleeves things he knowes not why I say it is by chance that he believes the Truth and not by choice and that I cannot but feare that God will not accept of this Sacrifice of fooles 114 But you that would not have men follow their reason what would you have them to follow their Passion Or pluck out their eyes and goe blindfold No you say you would have them follow Authority On gods name let them we also would have them follow Authority for it is upon the Authority of Vniversall Tradition that we would have them believe Scripture But then as
Tradition Now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us Therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our beliefe Now then to come up closer to you and to answer to your Question not as you put it but as you should haue put it I say That this position Scripture alone is the rule whereby they which belieue it to be Gods Word are to judge all Controversies in Faith is no fundameÌ„tall point Though not for your Reasons For your first and strongest reason you see is plainly voided and cut off by my stating of the Question as I haue done and supposing in it that the parties at variance are agreed about this That the Scripture is the word of God and consequently that this is none of their Controversies To your second That Controversies cannot be ended without some living Authority We haue said already that necessary Controversies may be are decided And if they be not ended this is not through defect of the Rule but through the default of Men. And for these that cannot thus be ended it is not necessary they should be ended For if God did require the ending of them he would have provided some certain meanes for the ending of them And to your Third I say that your pretence of using these meanes is but hypocriticall for you use them with prejudice and with a setled resolution not to believe any thing which these meanes happily may suggest into you if it any way crosse your pre-conceav'd persuasion of your Churches infallibility You give not your selves liberty of judgement in the use of them nor suffer your selves to bee led by them to the Truth to which they would lead you would you but be as willing to believe this consequence Our Church doth oppose Scripture therefore it doth erre therefore it is not Infallible as you are resolute to believe this The Church is infallible therefore it doth not erre and therefore it doth not oppose Scripture though it seem to doe so never so plainly 157 You pray but it is not that God would bring you to the true Religion but that he would confirm you in your own You conferre places but it is that you may confirm or colour over with plausible disguises your erroneous doctrine not that you may judge of them forsake them if there be reason for it You consult the Originalls but you regard them not when they make against your Doctrine or Translation 158 You adde not only the Authority but the Infallibility not of Gods Church but of the Roman a very corrupt and degenerous part of it whereof D. Potter never confessed that it cannot erre damnably And which being a company made up of particular men can afford you no help but the industry learning and wit of private men and that these helps may not help you out of your errour tell you that you must make use of none of all these to discover any errour in the Church but only to maintaine her impossibility or erring And lastly D. Potter assures himselfe that your Doctrine and practises are damnable enough in themselves Only he hopes and spes est rei incertae nomen he hopes I say that the Truths which you retain especially the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ will bee as an antidote to you against the errours which you maintain and that your superstructions may burne yet they amongst you Qui sequun tur Absalonem in simplicitate cor dis may be saved yet so as by fire Yet his thinking so is no reason for you or me to think so unlesse you suppose him infallible and if you doe why doe you write against him 159 Notwithstanding though not for these reasons yet for others I conceive this Doctrine not Fundamentall Because if a man should believe Christian Religion wholly and entirely and live according to it such a man though he should not know or not believe the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith no nor to be the word of God my opinion is he may be saved and my reason is because he performes the entire condition of the new Covenant which is that we believe the matter of the Gospell and not that it is contained in these or these Bookes So that the Bookes of Scripture are not so much the objects of our faith as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding and not so much of the being of the Christian Doctrine as requisite to the well being of it Irenaeus tels us as M. K. acknowledgeth of some barbarous Nations that believed the Doctrine of Christ and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God for they never heard of it and Faith comes by hearing But these barbarous people might be saved therefore men might be saved without believing the Scripture to be the word of God much more without believing it to be a Rule and a perfect Rule of Faith Neither doubt I but if the bookes of Scripture had been proposed to them by the other parts of the Church where they had been before received and had been doubted of or even rejected by those barbarous nations but still by the bare beliefe and practise of Christianity they might be saved God requiring of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein contained and not the divine Authority of the bookes wherein they are contained Not but that it were now very strange and unreasonable if a man should belieue the matter of these bookes and not the Authority of the bookes and therefore if a man should professe the not believing of these I should have reason to fear he did not believe that But there is not alwaies an equall necessity for the belief of those things for the belief whereof there is an equall reason We have I believe as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight K. of England as that Iesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilaâ—â— yet this is necessary to be believed and that is not so So that if any man should doubt of or disbelieve that it were most unreasonably done of of him yet it were no mortall sinne nor no sinne at all God having no where commanded men under pain of damnation to believe all which reason induceth them to believe Therefore as an Executor that should performe the whole will of the dead should fully satisfy the Law though he did not believe that Parchment to be his written Will which indeed is so So I believe that he who believes all the particular doctrines which integrate Christianity and lives according to them should be saved though he neither believed nor knew that the Gospels were written by the Evangelists or the Epistles by the Apostles 160 This discourse whether it be rationall and concluding or no I submit to better judgement But sure I am that the corollary which you draw from this position that this point is not Fundamentaâ— is very inconsequent that is that we are uncertain of the truth
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
truth 164 To the Argument wherewith you conclude I Answere That though the visible Church shall alwaies without faile propose so much of Gods revelation as is sufficient to bring men to Heaven for otherwise it will not be the visible Church yet it may sometimes adde to this revelation things superfluous nay hurtfull nay in themselves damnable though not unpardonable and sometimes take from it things very expedient and profitable and therefore it is possible without siâ—ne to resist in some things the Visible Church of Christ. But you presse us farther and demand what visible Church was extant when Luther began whether it were the Roman or Protestant Church As if it must of necessity either be Protestant or Roman or Roman of necessity if it were not Protestant yet this is the most usuall fallacy of all your disputers by some specious Arguments to perswade weak men that the Church of Protestants cannot be the true Church and thence to inferre that without doubt it must be the Roman But why may not the Roman be content to be a part of it and the Grecian another And if one must be the whole why not the Greek Church as well as the Roman there being not one Note of your Church which agrees not to her as well as to your own unlesse it be that she is poor and oppressed by the Turk and you are in glory and splendor 165 Neither is it so easy to be determined as you pretend That Luther and other Protestants opposed the whole visible Church in matters of Faith neither is it so evident that the Visible Church may not fall into such a state wherein she may be justly opposed And lastly for calling the distinction of points into Fundamentall and not Fundamentall an evasion I believe you will find it easier to call it so then to prove it so But that shall be the issue of the Controversy in the next Chapter CHAP. III. That the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall is neither pertinent nor true in our present Controversie And that the Catholike Visible Church cannot erre in either kinde of the said points THIS distinction is abused by Protestants to many purposes of theirs and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith without any means of agreement they instantly tell you as Charity mistaken plainly shewes that they differ only in pâ—ints not fundamentall If you convince them even by their own Confessions that the ancient Fathers taught divers points held by the Roman Church against Protestants they reply that those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved because those errours were not fundamentall If you will them to remember that Christ must alwaies haue a visible Church on earth with administration of Sacraments and succession of Paâ—stors and that when Luther appeared there was no Church distinct from the Roman whose Communion and doctrine Luther then forâ—ook and for that cause must be guilty of Schisme and Herosie they haue an Answer such as it is that the Catholike Church cannot perish yet may erre in points not fundamentall and therefore Luther and other Protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors under paine of Damnation as if forsooth it were Damnable to hold an error not Fundamentall nor Damnable If you wonder how they can teach that both Catholiques and Protestants may be saved in their severall professions they salve this contradiction by saying that we both agree in all fundamentall points of faith which is enough for salvation And yet which is prodigiously strange they could never be induced to give a Catalogue what points in particular be fundamentall but only by some generall description or by referring us to the Apostles Creed without determining what points therein be fundamentall or not fundamentall for the matter and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of divers points contained or reduced to the Creed they differ both from us and among themselves And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibit any such Catalogue the said distinction of points although it were pertinent and true cannot serve them to any purpose but still they must remaine uncertaine whether or not they disagree from one another from the ancient Fathers and from the Catholique Church in points fundamentall which is to say they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian Faith without which they cannot hope to be saved But of this more heerafter 2 And to the end that what shall be said concerning this distinction may be better understood wee are to observe that there be two precepts which concerne the vertue of faith or our obligation to believe divine truths The one is by Divines called Affirmative whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicite belief of some chief Articles of Christian faith The other is â—ermed Negative which strictly binds us not not to disbelieve that is not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understanding as revealed or spoken by Almighty God The said Affirmative Precept according to the nature of such commands injoynes some act to be performed but not at all times nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all objects to be believed For objects we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitely and severall believed then other either because they are in themselves more great and weighty or els in regard they instruct us in some necessary Christian duty towards God our selves or our Neighbour For persons no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more then others by reason of their office vocation capacity or the like For times we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith but according as severall occasions permit or require The second kind of precept called Negative doth according to the nature of all such commands oblige universally all persons in respect of all objects and at all times seâ—per pro semper as Divines speak This generall doctrine will be more cleere by examples I am not obliged to be alwaies helping my Neighbour because the Affirmative precept of Charity bindeth only in some particular cases But I am alwaies bound by a Negative precept never to doe him any hurt or wrong I am not alwaies bound to utter what I know to be true yet I am obliged never to speak any one least untruth against my knowledge And to come to our present purpose there is no Affirmative precept commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one or all Articles of faith But we are obliged never to exercise any act against any one truth known to be revealed All sorts of persons are not bound explicitely and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise but
saying I answer that this is an inconsiderate speech and unworthy so great a Father But let us conclude with S. Augustine that the Church cannot approue any errour against faith or good manners The Church saith he being Placed between much chaffe and cockle doth tollerate many things but yet she doth not approue nor dissemble nor doe those things which are against faith or good life 17 And as I haue proved that Protestants according to their grounds cannot yeeld infallibls assent to the Church in any one point so by the same reason I prove that they cannot rely upon Scripture it selfe in any one point of faith Not in points of lesser moment or not fundamentall because in such points the Catholique Church according to D. Potter and much more any Protestant may erre and thinke it is contained in Scripture when it is not Not in points fundamentall because they must first know what points be fundamentall before they can bee assured that they cannot erre in understanding the Scripture and consequently independantly of Scripture they must foreknow all fundamentall points of faith and therefore they doe not indeed rely upon Scripture either for fundamentall or not fundamentall points 18 Besides I mainly urge D. Potter and other Protestants that they tell us of certain points which they call fundamentall and we cannot wrest from them a list in particular of such points without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of salvation And which is most lamentable insteed of giving us such a Catalogue they fall to wrangle among themselves about the making of it 19 Calvin holds the Popes Primacy Invocation of Saints Free will and such like to bee fundamentall errours overthrowing the Gospell Others are not of his minde as Melancthou who saith in the opinion of himselfe and other his Brethren That the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome is of use or profit to this end that Consent of Doctrine may be retained An agreement therefore may easily be established in this Article of the Popes Primacy if other Articles could be agreed upon If the Popes Primacy be a meanes that consent of Doctrine may be retained first submit to it and other articles will be easily agreed upon Luther also saith of the Popes Primacy it may be borne withall And why then O Luther did you not beare with it And how can you and your followers be excused from damnable Schisme who chose rather to devide Gods Church then to beare with that which you confesse may be borne withall But let us goe forward That the doctrine of freewill Prayer for the dead worshipping of Images Woâ—ship and Invocation of Saints Reall presence Transubstantiation Receaving under one kinde Satisfaction and Ment of works and the Masse be not fundamentall Errours is taught respective by divers Protestants carefully alleaged in the Protestants Apologie c. as namely by Perkins Cartwright Frith Fulle Spark Goade Luther Reynolds Whitaker Tindall Franci Iohnson with others Contrary to these is the Confession of the Christian faith so called by Protestants which I mentioned heretofore wherein we are damned unto unquenchable fire for the doctrine of Masse Prayer to Saints and for the dead Freewill Presence at Idol-service Mans merit with such like Iustification by faith alone is by some Protestants affirmed to be the soule of the Church The only principall origen of Salvation of all other points of doctrine the chiefest and weightiest Which yet as we haue seen is contrary to other Protestants who teach that meâ— of good works is not a fundamentall Errour yea divers Protestants defend merit of good works as may bee seen in Breereley One would think that the Kings Supremacy for which some blessed men lost their lives was once among Protestants held for a Capitall point but now D. Andrewes late of Winchester in his book against Bellarmime tells us that it is sufficient to reckon it among true Doctrines And Woâ—ton denies that Protestants hold the Kings Supremacy to be an essentiall point of faith O freedome of the new Gospell Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritanes neither Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saved Some as Castalio and the whole Sect of the Academicall Protestants hold that doctrines about the Supper Baptisme the state and office of Christ how he is one with his Father the Trinity Predestination and divers other such questions are not necessary to Salvation And that you may observe how ungrounded and partiall their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Reall presence of our Saviours Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholiques is a fundamentall errour and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstanding that divers chiefe Lutherans to their Consubstantiation joyne the prodigious Heresie of Vbiquitation D. Vsher in his Sermon of the Vnity of the Catholique faith grants Salvation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptisme joyne Circumcision D. Potter cites the doctrine of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgement that all who professe to loue and honour IES VS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgement is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose love and honour to Iesus-Christ you may perceive by his saying that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God bâ—cause they doe hold the foundation of the Gospell which is Faith in Iesus-Christ the Sonne of God and Saviour of the world And which is more it seemeth by these charitable men that for being a member of the Church it is not necessary to believe one only God For D. Potter among the arguments to proue Hookers and Mortons opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their grosse corruptions Idolatry remained still a true Church We may also as it seemeth by these mens reasoning deny the Resurrection and yet be members of the true Chruch For a learned man saith D. Potter in behalfe of Hookers and Mortons opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurreâ—tion of our bodies Deere Saviour What times doe we behold If one may be a member of the true Church and yet deny the Trinity of the Persons the Godhead of our Saviour the necessity of Baptisme if we may use Circumcision and with the worship of God joyne Idolatry wherein doe we differ from Turks and Iews or rather are we not worse then eyther of them If they who deny our Saviours divinity might be accounted the Church of God how will they deny that favour to those ancient Heretiques who denied our Saviours true humanity and so
Church upon pretence of her errors haue failed even in fundamentall points and suffered shipwrack of their Salvation ought to deter all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practises as to omit other both ancient and modern heresies we see that divers chiefe Protestants pretending to reform the corruptions of the Church are come to affirm that for many Ages she erred to death and wholy perished which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall Errour against that Article of our Creed I believe the Catholique Church as he aâ—â—irmeth it of the Donatists because they confined the universall Church within Africa or some other smal tract of soile Least therefore I may fall into some fundamentall errour it is most safe for me to belieue all the Decrees of that Church which cannot errâ— fundamentally especially if we adde That according to the Doctrine of Catholique Divines one errour in faith whether it be for the matter it selfe great or small dâ—stroies faith as is shewed in Charity Mistaken and consequently to accuse the Church of any one Errour is to affirm that she lost all faith and erred damnably which very saying is damnable because it leaues Christ no visible Church on earth 21 To all these arguments I adde this demonstration D. Potter teacheth that there neither â—as nor can be any iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But if the Church of Christ can erre in some points of faith men not only may but must forsake her in those unlesse D. Potter will haue them to believe one thing and professe another and if such errours and corruptions should fall out to be about the Churches Liturgy publique Service administration of Sacraments and the like they who perceive such errours must of necessity leaue her externall Communion And therefore if once we grant the Church may erre iâ— followeth that men may and ought to forsake her which is against D. Potters own words or else they are inexcusable who left the Communion of the Roman Church under pretence of Errours which they grant not to be fundumentall And if D. Potter think good to answer this argument he must remember his own doctrine to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not fundamentall 22 Another argument for the universall Infallibility of the Church I take out of D. Potters own words If saith he we did not dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholique These words cannot be true unlesse he presuppose that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall For if she may erre in such points the Roman Church which he affirmeth to erre only in points not fundamentall may agree with the Church truly Catholique if she likewise may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore either he must acknowledge a plain contradiction in his own words or else must grant that the Church truly Catholique cannot erre in points not fundamentall which is what we intended to proue 23 If Words cannot perswade you that in all Controversies you must rely upon the infallibility of the Church at least yeeld your assent to Deeds Hitherto I haue produced Arguments drawn as it were ex naturâ rei from the Wisdome and Goodnesse of God who cannot faile to haue left some infallible meanes to determine Controversies which as we haue proved can be no other except a Visible Church infallible in all her Definitions But because both Catholiques and Protestants receive holy Scripture we may thence also proue the infallibility of the Church in all matters which concern Faith and Religion Our Saviour speaketh clearly The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her And I will aske my Father and he will giue you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever the Spirit of truth And But when he the Spirit of truth commeth he shall teach you all truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth And He gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the body of Christ untill we meet all into the unity of faith and knowleâ—ge of the Sonne of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the â—ulnesse of Christ that now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every winde of doctrine in the wickednesse of men in craftinesse to the circumvention of Errour All which words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of faith could not be conserved against every winde of Doctrine And yet Doctor Potter limits these promises and priviledges to fundamentall points in which he grants the Church cannot erre I urge the words of Scripture which are universall and doe not mention any such restraint I alleadge that most reasonable and receaved Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unlesse some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serue to accord our different interpretations In the mean time divers of Doctor Potters Brethren step in and reject his limitation as over large and somewhat tasting of Papistry And therefore they restrain the mentioned Texts either to the Infallibility which the Apostles and other sacred Writers had in penning of Scripture or else to the invisible Church of the Elect and to them not absolutely but with a double restriction that they shall not fall damnably and finally and other men haue as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfe same words of Scripture We conferre divers places and Text We consult the Originalls We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We professe to speak sincerely To seek nothing but truth and salvation of our own soules and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those meanes which by Protestants themselues are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Neverthelesse we neither doe or haue any possible meanes to agree as long as we are left to our selues and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it selfe be a fundamentall point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the Lover of soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion Our remedy therefore in these contentions must be to consult and heare God's Visible Church with submissiue acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever she proposeth as a revealed truth according to that divine advice of S. Augustine in these words If at length thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to
because it is written The Priests lips shall preserve knowledg The Scribes and Pharises sit in Moses chaire c. To any Preacher of the Gospell to any Pastor or Doctor for to every one of them Christ hath promised he will be with them alwaies even to the end of the world of every one of them it is said He that heareth you heareth me c. To any Bishop or Prelate for it is written Obey your Prelates and againe he hath given Pastors and Doctors c. least we should be carried about with every wind of doctrine To any particular Church of Christians seeing it is a particular Church which is called The house of God a Pillar ground of Truth and seeing of any Particular Church it is written He that heareth not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publicâ—d We might referre it to any man that prayes for Gods spirit for it is written Every one that asketh receiveth and again If any man want wisdome let him aske of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not Lastly we might referre it to the Iewes for without all doubt of them it is written my spirit that is in thee c. All these meanes of agreement whereof not any one but hath as much probability from Scripture as that which you obtrude upon us offer themselves upon a suddain to me happily many more might be thought on if we had time but these are enough to shew that would we make use of voluntary and devised meanes to determine differences we had them in great abundance And if you say these would faile us and contradict themselves so as we pretend have yours There have been Popes against Popes Councells against Councells Councells confirmed by Popes against Councells confirmed by Popes Lastly the Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages 9 Lastly whereas you find fault That Protestants upbraided with their discords answer that they differ only in points not Fundamentall I desire you tell me whether they doe so or doe not so If they doe so I hope you will not find fault with the Answer If you say they doe not so but in points Fundamentall also then they are not members of the same Church one with another no more then with you And therefore why should you object to any of them their differences from each other any more then to your selves their more and greater differences from you 10 But they are convinc'd sometimes even by their own confessions that the Ancient Fathers taught divers points of Popery and then they reply those Fathers may neverthelesse be saved because those errors were not Fundamentall And may not you also be convinc'd by the confessions of your own men that the Fathers taught divers points held by Protestants against the Church of Rome and divers against Protestants and the Church of Rome Doe not your Purging Indexes clip the tongues and seal up the lips of a great many for such confessions And is not the above cited confession of your Doway Divines plain and full to the same purpose And doe not you also as freely as we charge the Fathers with errors yet say they were saved Now what else doe we understand by an unfundamentall error but such a one with which a man may possibly be saved So that still you proceed in condemning others for your own faults and urging arguments against us which returne more strongly upon your selves 11 But your will is we should remember that Christ must alwaies have a visible Church Ans. Your pleasure shall be obeyed on condition you will not forget that there is a difference between perpetuall Visibility and perpetuall Purity As for the answere which you make for us true it is we believe the Catholique Church cannot perish yet that she may and did erre in points not Fundamentall and that Protestants were oblig'd to forsake these errors of the Church as they did though not the Church for her errors for that they did not but continued still members of the Church For it is not all one though you perpetually confound them to forsake the errors of the Church and to forsake the Church or to forsake the Church in her Errors and simply to forsake the Church No more then it is for me to renounce my Brothers or my Friends Vices or Errors and to renounce my Brother or my Friend The Former then was done by Protestants the latter was not done Nay not only not from the Catholique but not so much as from the Roman did they seperate per omnia but only in those practises which they conceived superstitious or impious If you would at this time propose a forme of Liturgy which both Sides hold lawfull and then they would not joyne with you in this Liturgy you might have some colour then to say they renounce your communion absolutely But as things are now ordered they cannot joyne with you in prayers but they must partake with you in unlawfull practises and for this reason they not absolutely but thus farre separate from your communion And this I say they were obliged to doe under pain of damnation Not as if it were damnable to hold an error not damnable but because it is damnable outwardly to professe maintaine it and to joyn with others in the practise of it when inwardly they did not hold it Now had they continued in your communion that they must have done vid. have professed to believe and externally practis'd your Errors whereof they were convinced that they were Errors which though the matters of the Errors had been not necessary but only profitable whether it had not been damnable dissimulation and hypocrisy I leave it to you to judge You your selfe tell us within two pages after this that you are obliged never to speak any one least lye against your knowledge § 2. now what is this but to live in a perpetuall lye 12 As for that which in the next place you seeme so to wonder at That both Catholiques and Protestants according to the opinion of Protestants may bee saved in their severall professions because forsooth we both agree in all Fundamentall points I Anwere this proposition so crudely set down as you have here set it down I know no Protestant will justify For you seeme to make them teach that it is an indifferent thing for the attainment of salvation whether a man believe the Truth or the Falshood and that they care not in whether of these Religions a man live or dye so he dye in either of them whereas all that they say is this That those amongst you which want meanes to find the Truth and so dye in error or use the best meanes they can with industry and without partiality to find the truth and yet dye in error these men thus qualified notwithstanding these errors may be saved Secondly for those that have meanes to find the
Truth and will not use them they conceive though their case be dangerous yet if they dye with a generall repentance for all their sinnes knowne and unknowne their Salvation is not desperate The Truths which they hold of Faith in Christ and Repentance being as it were an antidote against their errors and their negligence in seeking the Truth Especially seeing by confession of both sides we agree in much more thē is simply indispēsably necessary to salvatiō 13 But seeing we make such various use of this distinction is it not prodigiously strange that we will never be induc'd to give in a particular Catalogue what points be fundamentall And why I pray is it so prodigiously strange that we give no answer to an unreasonable demand God himself hath told us That where much is given much shall be required where litle is given litle shall be required To Infants Deafe-men Mad-men nothing for ought wee knowe is given and if it bee so of them nothing shall be required Others perhaps may have meanes only given them to beleive That God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him and to whom thus much only is given to them it shall not be damnable that they beleive but only thus much Which methinks is very manifest from the Apostle in the Epist. to the Heb where having first said that without faith it is impossible to please God he subjoynes as his reason for whosoever commeth unto God must beleive that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Where in my opinion this is plainly intimated that this is the minimum quòd sic the lowest degree of Faith wherewith in men capable of Faith God will be pleased and that with this lowest degree he will be pleased where meanes of rising higher are deficient Besides if without this beliefe that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him God will not be pleased then his will is that we should beleive it Now his will it cannot be that we should beleive a falshood It must be therefore true that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him Now it is possible that they which never heard of Christ may seek God therefore it is true that even they shall please him and be rewarded by him I say rewarded not with bringing them immediatly to salvation without Christ but with bringing them according to his good pleasure first to faith in Christ and so to salvation To which beleife the story of Cornelius in the 10. chap. of the Acts of the Apostles and S. Peter's words to him are to me a great inducement For first it is evident he beleeved not in Christ but was a meer Gentile one that knew not but men might be worshipped and yet we are assured that his prayers and almes even while he was in that state came up for a memoriall before God That his prayer was heard and his Almes had in remembrance in the sight of God v. 4. that upon his Then fearing God and working righteousnesse such as it was he was accepted with God But how accepted Not to be brought immediatly to salvation but to be promoted to a higher degree of the knowledge of Gods will For so it is in the 4. 5. v. Call for Simon whose sirname is Peter he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to doe and at the 33. vers We are all here present before God to heare all things that are cōmanded thee of God So that though even in his Gentilisme he was accepted in his present state yet if he had continued in it refused to beleive in Christ after the sufficient revelation of the Gospell to him and Gods will to have him beleive it he that was accepted before would not have continued accepted still for then that condemnation had come upon him that light was come unto him and he loved darknesse more then light So that to proceed a step farther to whom faith in Christ is sufficiently propounded as necessary to Salvation to them it is simply necessary Fundamentall to believe in Christ that is to expect remission of sinnes and Salvation from him upon the performance of the conditions he requires among which conditions one is that we believe what he has revealed when it is sufficiently declared to have been revealed by him For by doing so we set to our seale that God is true and that Christ was sent by him Now that may be sufficiētly declared to one all things considered which all things considered to another is not sufficiently declared and consequently that may be Fundamentall and necessary to one which to another is not so Which variety of circumstances makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentalls and proves your request as reasonable as if you should desire us according to the Fable to make a coat to fit the Moon in all her changes or to giue you a garment that will fit all statures Or to make you a dyall to serve all meridians or to designe particularly what provision will serve an army for a year whereas there may be an army of ten thousand there may be of 100000. And therefore without seting downe a catalogue of Fundamentalls in particular because none that can be given can universally serve for all men God requiring more of them to whom he gives more and lesse of them to whom he gives lesse we must content our selves by a generall description to tell you what is Fundamentall And to warrant us in doing so we have your own example § 19. where being engaged to giue us a catalogue of Fundamentalls in stead thereof you tell us only in generall that all is fundamentall and not to be disbeleeved under pain of damnation which the Church hath defin'd As you therefore think it enough to say in generall that all is Fundamentall which the Church has defined without setting down in particular a compleat-Catalogue of all things which in any age the Church has defined which I believe you will not undertake to doe and if you doe it will be contradicted by your Fellowes So in reason you might think it enough for us also to say in generall that it is sufficient for any mans salvation to believe that the Scripture is true and containes all things necessary for salvation and to doe his best endeavour to find and believe the true sense of it without delivering any particular catalogue of the Fundamentalls of Faith 14 Neither doth the want of such a catalogue leave us in such a perplexed uncertainty as you pretend For though perhaps we cannot exactly distinguish in the Scripture what is revealed because it is necessary from what is necessary consequently and accidentally meerely because it is revealed yet we are sure enough that all that is necessary any way is there and therefore in believing all that is there we are sure to believe all that is necessary And if we
shew or shadow of Reason and an evident sophisme grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamentall 49 The first untruth is that D. Potter makes a Church of men agreeing scarcely in one point of faith of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory Agreeing only in this one Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest like to the parts of a Chimaera c. Which I say is a shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his own judgement but relates the opinion of others M. Hooker and M. Morton but especially because even these men as they are related by D. Potter to the constituting of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Saviour of the World but also submission to his Doctrine in mind and will Now I beseech you Sir tell me ingenuously whether the doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith or whether it consists only of some one or few Articles of belief Or whether there be nothing in it but only this Article That Christ is our Saviour Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions doe agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisy pretend to believe in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ but he must have the same to believe the Scripture I pray then read over the Scripture once more or if that be too much labour the New Testament only and then say whether there be nothing there but scarcely one point of Faith But some one or two Articles of beleif Nothing but this Article onely that Christ is our Saviour Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities Divine precepts Divine promises and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered that if any sees them not it cannot be because he cannot but because he will not So plainly that whosoever submits syncerely to the doctrine of Christ in mind and will cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance And in the rest which it hath pleased God for reasons best known to himselfe to deliver obscurely or ambiguously yet thus farre at least they agree that the sense of them intended by God is certainly true and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out The difference only is which is that true sense which God intended Neither would this long continue if the walls of separation whereby the Divell hopes to make their Divisions eternall were pulled down and errour were not supported against Truth by humane advantages But for the present God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it For whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement through I know not what strange glasses have made the first innumerable and the other scarce a number the truth is clean contrary That those divine Verities Speculative and Practicall wherein they universally agree which you will have to be but a few or but one or scarcely one amount to many millions i◠an exact account were taken of them And on the other side the Ponts in variance are in comparison but few and those not of such a quality but the Error in them may well consist with the belief obedience of the entire Covenant ratified by Christ between God and man Yet I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants unconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearfull that some of their opinions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with thē yet are too frequent occasions of our remisnes and slacknesse in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne not seldome of security in sinning consequently though not certain causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation and such I conceive all these doctrines which either directly or obliquely put men in hope of eternall happinesse by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universall obedience grounded upon a true and lively faith These Errours therefore I doe not elevate or extenuate and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed doe heartily wish that the cement were made of my deerest blood and only not to be an Anathema from Christ Only this I say that neither are their points of agreement so few nor their differences so many as you make them nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being members of one Church Militant joynt heires of the glory of the Church Triumphant 50 Your other palpable untruth is that Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith then Catholique Divines you mean your own in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For neither doe they differ at all in matters of faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mean by matters of faith such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed or not to be disbelieved And then in those wherein they doe differ with what colour or shadow of Argument can you make good that they are more bold to disagree then you are in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is between theirs You follow your Reason in those things wich are not determined by your Church and they theirs in things not plainly determined in Scripture And wherein then consists their greater their farre greater boldnesse And what if they in their contradictory opinions pretend both to rely upon the truth of God doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant I had alwaies thought that all contradictions had been equally contradictions and equally repugnant because the least of them are as farre asunder as Est and Non Est can make them and the greatest are no farther But then you in your differences by name about Predetermination the Immaculate Conception the Popes Infallibility upon what other motive doe you rely Doe not you cite Scripture or Tradition or both on both sides And doe you not pretend that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God 51 You close up this Section with a fallacy proving forsooth that we destroy by our confession the Church which is the house of God
the Apostles Creed as not being their Creed in any sense but onely a part of it To this you answer § 2 5. Vpon the same affected ambignity c. Answ. It is very true that their whole faith was of a larger extent but that was not the Question But whether all the points of simple beliefe which they taught as necessary to be explicitely believed be not contained in it And if thus much at least of Christian Religion bee not comprized in it I again desire you to inform me how it could be call'd the Apostles Creed 74 Foure other Reasons D. Potter urges to the same purpose grounded upon the practise of the Ancient Church The last whereof you answer in the second part of your Book But to the rest drawne from the ancient Churches appointing her Infants to be instructed for matters of simple beliefe only in the Creed From her admitting Catechumens unto Baptisme and of Strangers to her Communion upon their only profession of the Creed you haue not for ought I can perceaue thought fit to make any kind of answer 75 The difficulties of the 27. and last § of this Chapter haue been satisfied So that there remaines unexamined onely the 26. Section wherein you exceed your selfe in sophistry Especially in that trick of Cavillers which is to answer objections by other objections an excellent way to make controversies endlesse D. Potter desires to be resolved Why amongst many things of equall necessity to be believed the Apostles should distinctly set down some in the Creed and bee altogether silent of others In stead of resolving him in this difficulty you put another to him and that is Why are some points not Fundamentall expressed in it rather then other of the same quality Which demand is so far from satisfying the former doubt that it makes it more intricate For upon this ground it may be demanded How was it possible that the Apostles should leave out any Articles simply necessary and put in others not necessary especially if their intention were as you say it was to deliver in it such Articles as were fittest for those times Vnlesse which were wondrous strange unnecessary Articles were fitter for those times then necessary But now to your Question the Answer is obvious These unnecessary things might be put in because they were circumstances of the necessary Pontius Pilate of Christs Passion The third day of the Resurrectiō neither doth the adding of thē make the Creed ever a whit the lesse portable the lesse fit to be understood and remembred And for the contrary reasons other unnecessary things might bee left out Besides who sees not that the addition of some unnecessary circumstances is a thing that can hardly be avoided without affectation And therefore not so great a fault nor deserving such a censure as the omission of any thing essentiall to the work undertaken and necessary to the end proposed in it 76 You demand again as it is no hard matter to multiply demands why our Saviours descent to Hell and Buriall was expressed and not his circumcision his manifestation to the three Kings and working of Miracles I answer His Resurrection Ascension and sitting at the right hand of God are very great Miracles and they are expressed Besides S. Iohn assures us That the Miracles which Christ did were done and written not for themselves that they might be believed but for a farther end that we might believe that Iesus was the Christ and believing haue eternall life He therefore that belieues this may be saved though he haue no explicite and distinct faith of any Miracle that our Saviour did His Circumcision Manifestation to the Wise men for I know not upon what grounds you call them Kings are neither things simply necessary to be known nor haue any neer relation to those that are so As for his Descent into Hell it may for ought you know be put in as a thing necessary of it selfe to be known If you ask why more then his Circumcision I refer you to the Apostles for an answer who put that in and left this out of their Creed and yet sure were not so forgetfull after the receiving of the holy Ghost as to leaue out any prime principall foundation of the faith which are the very words of your own Gordonius Huntlaeus Cont. 2. c. 10. num 10. Likewise his Buriall was put in perhaps as necessary of it selfe to be known But though it were not yet hath it manifestly so neer relation to these that are necessary his Passion Resurrection being the Consequent of the one and the Antecedent of the other that it is no marvell if for their sakes it was put in For though I verily belieue that there is no necessary point of this nature but what is in the Creed yet I doe not affirme because I cannot prove it that there is nothing in the Creed but what is necessary You demand thirdly Why did they not expresse Scriptures Sacraments and all Fundamentall points of faith tending to practise as well as those which rest in Beliefe I answer Because their purpose was to comprize in it only those necessary points which rest in beliefe which appeares because of practicall points there is not in it so much as one 77 D. Potter subjoynes to what is said aboue That as well nay better they might have given no Article but that of the Church and sent us to the Church for all the rest For in setting down others besides that and not all they make us beleeve we have all when we have not all This consequence you deny and neither give reason against it nor satisfie his reason for it which yet in my judgment is good and concluding The Proposition to be proved is this That if your Doctrine were trve this short Creed I beleeve the Roman Church to be infallible would have been better that is more effectuall to keep the beleevers of it from Heresie and in the true faith then this Creed which now we have A proposition so evident that I cannot see how either you or any of your Religion or indeed any sensible man can from his heart deny it Yet because you make shew of doing so or else which I rather hope doe not rightly apprehend the force of the Reason I will endeavour briefly to adde some light and strength to it by comparing the effects of these severall supposed Creeds 78 The former Creed therefore would certainly produce these effects in the beleevers of it An impossibility of being in any formall Heresie A necessity of being prepared in mind to come out of all Errourin faith or materiall Heresie which certainly you will not denie or if you doe you pull downe the only pillar of your Church and Religion and denie that which is in effect the only thing you labour to prove through your whole Book 79 The latter Creed which now we have is so un-effectuall for these good purposes that you your self tell
hath a single relation to another or as all concur to make one Company or Congregation which we call the Church and this is the most principall reference and Vnion of one man with another because the chiefest Vnity is that of the Whole to which the particular Vnity of Parts is subordinate This Vnity or Onenesse if so I may call it is effected by Charity uniting all the members of the Church in one Mysticall Body contrary to which is Schisme from the Greeke word signifying Scissure or Division Wherefore vpon the whole matter wee find that Schisme as the Angellicall Doctor S. Thomas defines it is A voluntary separation from the Vnity of that Charity whereby all the members of the Church are united From hence he deduceth that Schisme is a speciall and particular vice distinct from Heresy because they are opposite to two different Vertues Heresy to Faith Schisme to Charity To which purpose hee fitly alleageth S. Hierome upon these words Tit. 3. A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admonition avoide saying I conceive that there is this difference betwixt Schisme and Heresy that Heresy involves some perverse assertion Schisme for Episcopall dissention doth seperate men from the Church The same doctrine is delivered by S. Austine in these words Heretiques and Schismatiques call their Congregations Churches but Heretiques corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiques by wicked divisions breake from fraternall Charity although they believe what we believe Therefore the Heretique belongs not to the Church because she loves God nor the Schismatique because she loves her Neighbour And in another place he saith It is wont to be demanded How Schismatiques be distinguished from Heretiques and this difference is found that not a divers faith but the divided Society of Communion doth make Schismatiques It is then evident that Schisme is different from Heresie Neverthelesse saith S. Thomas as he who is deprived of faith must needs want Charity so every Heretique is a Schismatique but not conversively every Schismatique is an Heretique though because want of Charity disposes and makes way to the destruction of faith according to those words of the Apostle Which a good conscience some casting off have suffered shipwrack in their faith Schisme speedily degenerates to Heresy as S. Hierome after the rebearsed words teacheth saying Though Schisme in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresy yet there is no Schisme which doth not faigne some heresy to it selfe that so it may seeme to have departed from the Church upon good reason Neverthelesse when Schisme proceeds originally from Heresy Heresy as being in that case the predominant quality in these two peccant humours giveth the denomination of an Heretique as on the other side we are wont especially in the beginning or for a while to call Schismatiques those men who first began with only Schisme though in processe of time they fell into some Heresy and by that meanes are indeed both Schismatiques and Heretiques 4. The reason why both Heresy and Schisme are repugnant to the being of a good Catholique is Because the Catholique or Vniversall Church signifies One Congregation or Company of faithfull people and therefore implies not only Faith to make them Faithfull believers but also Communion or Common Vnion to make them One in Charity which excludes Seperation and Division and therefore in the Apostles Creed Communion of Saints is immediatly joyned to the Catholique Church 5. From this definition of Schisme may be inferred that the guilt thereof is contracted not only by division from the Vniversall Church but also by a Separation from a particular Church or Diocesse which agrees with the Vniversall In this manner Meletius was a Schismatique but not an Heretique because as we read in S. Epiphanius he was of the right Faith for his faith was not altered at any time from the holy Catholique Church c. He made a Sect but departed not from Faith Yet because he made to himselfe a particular Congregation against S. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria his lawfull superiour and by that meanes brought in a division in that particular Church he was a Schismatique And it is well worth the noting that the Meletians building new Churches put this title upon them The Church of Martyrs and upon the antient Churches of those vvho succeeded Peter was inscribed The Catholique Church For so it is A new Sect must have a new name which though it be never so gay and specious as the Church of Martyrs the Reformed Church c. yet the Novelty sheweth that it is not the Catholique nor a true Church And that Schisme may be committed by division from a particular Church wee read in Optatus Milevitanus these remarkeable words which doe well declare who bee schismatiques brought by him to prove that not câ—cilianus but parmenianas was a Schismatique For Caecilianus went not out from Majorinus thy Grand-Father he meanes his next predecesâ—our but one in the Bishopâ—icke but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chaire of Peter or of Cyprian who was but a particular Bishop but Majorinus in whose Chaire thou sittest which had no beginning before Majorinus himselfe Seeing it is manifestly knowne that these things were so done it evidently appeareth that you are heires both of Traditors that is of those who delivered up the holy Bible to be burned and of Schismatiques And it seemeth that this kinde of Schisme must principally be admitted by Protestants who acknowledge no one visible Head of the whole Church but hold that every particular Diocesse Church or Countrey is governed by it selfe independently of any one Person or Generall Councell to which all Christians have obligation to submit their judgements and wills 6. As for the grievousnesse or quantity of Schisme which was the second point proposed S. Thomas teacheth that amongst sinnes against our Neighbour Schisme is the most grievous because it is against the spirituall good of the multitude or Community And therefore as in a Kingdome or Common-wealth there is as great difference betweene the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates among priuate men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdome so in the Church Schisme is as much more grievous then sedition in a Kingdome as the spirituall good of soules surpasseth the civill and politicall weale And S. Thomas addes further and they loose the spirituall Power of Iurisdiction and if they goe about to absolve from sinnes or to excommunicate their actions are invalid which he proves out of the Canon Novatianus Causa 7. quest 1. which saith He that keepeth neither the Vnity of spirit nor the peace of agreement and separates himselfe from the bond of the Church and the Colleage of Priests can neither have the Power nor dignity of a Bishop The Power also of Order for example to consecrate the Eucharist to ordaine Priests c.
the true Church was interrupted by Apostasy from the true Faith Calvin saith It is absurd in the very beginning to breake one from another after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world It were over-long to alleage the words of Ioannes Regius Daniel Chamierus Beza Ochimus Castalio and others to the same purpose The reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine was a desperate voluntary necessity because they being resolved not to acknowlâ—dge the Roman Church to be Christs true Church and yet being convinced by all manner of evidence that for divers Ages before Luther there was no other Congregation of Christians which could be the Church of Christ there was no remedy but to affirme that upon earth Christ had no visible Church which they would never have avouched if they had known how to avoid the foresaid inconvenience as they apprehended it of submitting themselves to the Roman Church 10 Against these exterminating spirits D. Potter and other more moderate Protestants professe that Christ alwaies had and alwaies will have upon earth a visible Church otherwise saith he our Lords promise of her stable edification should be of no value And in another place having affirmed that Protestants have not left the Church of Rome but her corruptions and acknowledging her still to be a member of Christs body he seeketh to cleere himselfe and others from Schisme because saith he the property of Schisme is witnesse the Donatists and Luciâ—erianâ— to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And if any Zelots amongst us have proceeded to heavier ceâ—sures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisdome cannot be iustified And elsewhere he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church hath those main and essentiall truths which give her the name and essence of a Church 11 It being therefore granted by D. Potter and the chiefest and best learned English Protestants that Christs visible Church cannot perish it will be needlesse for me in this occasion to prove it S. Augustine doubted not to say The Prophets spoke more obscurely of Christ then of the Church because as I thinke they did foresee in spirit that men were to make parties against the Church and that they were not to have so great strife concerning Christ therefore that was more plainly foretold and more openly prophecyed about which greater contentions were to rise that it might turne to the condemnation of them who have seeâ—e it and yet gone forth And in another place he saith How doe we confide to have received manifestly Christ himselfe from holy Scriptures if we have not also manifestly received the Church from them And indeed to what congregation shall a man have recourse for the affaires of his soule if upon earth there be no visible Church of Christ Besides to imagine a company of men believing one thing in their heart and with their mouth professing the contrary as they must be supposed to doe for if they had professed what they believed they would have become visible is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants but not to conceive a right notion of the Church of Christ our Lord. And therefore S. Augustine saith We cannot be saved unlesse labouring also for the salvation of others we professe with our mouthes the same faith which we bear in our hearts And if any man hold it lawfull to dissemble and deny matters of faith we cannor be assured but that they actually dissemble and hide Anabaptisme Arianisme yea Turcisme and even Atheisme or any other false beliefe under the outward profession of Calvinisme Doe not Protestants teach that preaching of the word and administration of Sacraments which cannot but make a Church visible are inseparable notes of the true Church And therefore they must either grant a visible Church or none at all No wonder then if S. Aâ—stine account this Heresy so grosse that he saith against those who in his time defended the like errour But this Church which hath been of all Nations is no â—ore she 〈◊〉 perished so say they that are not in her O impudent speech And afterward 〈…〉 so detestable so full of presumption and falshood which is sustâ—ined with no truth enlightned with no wisdome seasoned with no falt vaine rash beady 〈…〉 c. And Peradventure some one may say there are other sheep I know not where with which I am not dequâ—inted yet God hath care of them But he is too absurd in 〈◊〉 sense that 〈◊〉 imagine such things And these men doe not consider that while they deny the perpeâ—uity of a visible Church they destroy their own present Church according to the argument which S. Augustine urged against the Donatists in these words If the Church were lost in Cyprians we may say in Gregories time from whence did Donatus Luther appeare From what earth did he spring from what sea is he come From what heaven did he drop And in another place How can they â—â—unt to have any Church if he have ceased ever since those times And all Divines by defining Schisme to be a division from the true Church suppose that there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart But enough of this in these few words 12 Let us now come to the fourth and chiefest point which was to examine whether Luther â—â—lvin and the rest did not deparâ— from the externall Communion of Christs visible Church and by that sepaâ—ation became gâ—â—lty of Schisme And that they are properly Schismatiques cleerely followeth from the grounds which we have laid concerning the nature of Schisme which 〈◊〉 in leaving the externall Communion of the visible Church of Christ our Lord and it is cleere by evidence of fact that Luther and his followers forsooke the Communion of that Anciâ—nt Church For they did not so much as pretend to joyne with any Congregation which had a being before their time for they would needs conceive that no visible company was free from errours in doctrine and corruption in practise And therefore they opposed the doctrine they withdrew their obedience from thâ— Prelâ—tes they left participation in Sacraments they châ—nged the Liturgy of publique service of whatsoever Church then extant And these things they preâ—â—nded to doe out of a perswasion that they were bound forsooth in conscience so to doe unlesse they would participâ—te with â—rrors corruptions and superstitions We dare not saith D. Potter communicate with Rome either in her publique Litâ—rgy which is manifestly polluted with grosse superstition c. or in those corrupt and ungrounded opinions which she hath added to the Faith of Catholiques But now 〈◊〉 D. Potter tell me with what visible Church extant before Luther he would have adventured to communicate in her publique Liturgy and Doctrine since he durst not communicate with Rome He will not be able to assigne
c. and tell me if you could excuse such Reformers from Schisme Sedition Rebellion Apostasie c what would you say of such Reformers in your Colledge or tumultuous persons in a kingdome Remember now your owne Tenets and then reflect how fit a similitude you have picked out to prove your self a Schismatique You teach that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall but that for all fundamentall points she is secured from error You teach that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall You and the whole world can witnesse that when Luther began he being but only One opposed himself to All as well subjects as superiours and that even then when he himself confessed that he had no intention of Reformation You cannot be ignorant but that many chief learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of our doctrine and practice and doe in severall and many Controversies acknowledge that the Ancient Fathers stood on our Side Consider I say these points and see whether your similitude doe not condemne your Progenitors of Schisme from God's visible Church yea and of Apostasie also from their Religious Orders if they were vowed Regulars as Luther and divers of them were 32 From the Monastery you are fâ—ed into an Hospitall of persons vniversally infected with some disease where you find to be true what I supposed that after your departure from your Brethren you might fall into greater inconveniences and more infectious diseases then those for which you left them But you are also upon the point to abandon these miserable needy persons in whose behalf for Charities sake let me set before you these considerations If the disease neither were nor could be mortall because in that Company of men God had placed a Tree of life If going thence the sick man might by curious tasting the Tree of Knowledge eate poyson under pretence of bettering his health If he could not hope thereby to avoid other diseases like those for which he had quitted the company of the first infected men If by his departure innumerable mischiefs were to ensue could such a man without sencelesnesse be excused by saying that he sought to free himself from the common disease but not forsooth to separate from the society Now your self compare the Church to a man deformed with superfluous fingers and toes but yet who hath not lost any vitall part you acknowledge that out of her society no man is secured from damnable errour and the world can beare witnesse what unspeakable mischiefs and calamities ensued Luthers revolt from the Church Pronounce then concerning them the same sentence which even now I have shewed them to deserve who in the manner aforesaid should separate from persons universally infected with some disease 33 But alas to what passe hath Heresy brought men who terme themselves Christians and yet blush not to compare the beloved Spouse of our Lord the one Dove the purâ—hase of our Saviours most precious blood the holy Catholique Church I mean that visible Church of Christ which Luther found spread over the whole world to a Monastery so disordered that it must be forsaken to the Gyant in Gath much deformed with superfluous fingers and toes to a society of men universally infected with some disease And yet all these comparisons and much worse are neither injurious nor undeserved if once it be granted or can be proved that the visible Church of Christ may erre in any one point of Faith although not fundamentall 34 Before I part from these similitudes one thing I must observe against the evasion of D. Potter that they left not the Church but her Corruptions For as those Reformers of the Monastery or those other who left the company of men universally infected with some disease would deny themselves to be Schismatiques or any way blame-worthy but could not deny but that they left the said Communities So Luther and the rest cannot so much as pretend not to have left the visible Church which according to them was infected with many diseases but can only pretend that they did not sinne in leaving her And you speak very strangly when you say In a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the Common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the Society For if they doe not separate themselves from the Society of the infected persons how doe they free themselves and depart from the common disease Doe they at the same time remain in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures We must then say that they separate themselves from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease Or if you say they free their owne persons from the common disease yet so that they remain still in the Company infected subject to the Superiours and Governours thereof eating and drinking and keeping publique Assemblies with them you cannot but know that Luther and your Reformers the first pretended free persons from the supposed common infection of the Roman Church did not so for they endeavoured to force the Society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if it refused they did when they had forces drive theÌ„ away even their Superiours both spirituall and temporall as is notorious Or if they had no power to expell that supposed infected Community or Church of that place they departed from them corporally whom mentally they had forsaken before So that you cannot deny but Luther forsook the externall Communion and company of the Catholique Church for which as your self confesse There neither was nor can be any just cause no more then to depart from Christ himself We doe therefore infer that Luther and the rest who forâ—ook that visible Church which they found upon earth were truely and properly Schismatiques 35 Moreover it is evident that there was a division between Luther and that Church which was Visible when he arose but that Church cannot be said to have divided her self from him befoâ—e whose time she was and in comparison of whom she was a Whole and he but a part therefore we must say that he divided himself and went out of her which is to be a Schismatique or Heretique or both By this argument Optatus Milevitanus proveth that not Caecilianus but Par menianus was a Schismatique saying For Caecilianus went not out of Maiorinuâ— thy Granaâ—ather but Maiorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chayre of Peter or Cyprian but Maiorinus in whose Chayre thou sittest which had no beginning beâ—ore Maiorinus Since it manifestly appeareth that these things were acted in this manner it is cleare that you are beyres both of the deliverers up of the holy Bible to be burned and also of Schismatiques The whole argument of this holy Father makes directly both against Luther and all those who continue the division which he begun and proves That going out convinceth
salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or who can conjoyn in one brain not crack't these assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselues fundamentall or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgement that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more Charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unlesse you will hold That of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamentall You ought to know that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is great difference between a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to erre in some doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgement they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not substantiall to faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in Gods Church You say that hay and stubble and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in points not fundamentall laid on the roofe destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christiā world rather then beare with some errours which did not destroy the foundation of faith And as fo◠others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receiue the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the faith of the Church with the Doctors And much lesse should they forsake the faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novelists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to haue doubted whether they were certain because your selfe affirm that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to mind the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your selfe sets down to free S. Cyprian from Schisme every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietnesse haue rectified their consciences about the pretended errours of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable and modest man dissented from others in his iudgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much lesse any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamentall or necessary and why doe you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue believed that they might haue been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42 In other places you write so much as may serve us to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture despise the Church so far as to cut of her Cōmunion he may be justly branded condemned for a Schismatique yea an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motives to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leave her Communion then evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should haue answered rectified their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace externall obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselves
way or other but also to disbelieve that is to believe the contrary of that which Faith proposeth as the examples of innumerable Arch-heretiques can beare witnesse This obscurity of faith we learne from holy Scripture according to those words of the Apostle Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for the argument of things not appearing And We see by a glasse in a dark manner but then face to face And accordingly S. Peter saith Which you doe well attending unto as to a Candle shining in a dark place 3 Faith being then obscure whereby it differeth from naturall Sciences and yet being most certain and infallible wherein it surpasseth humane Opinion it must relie upon some motive and ground which may be able to give it certainty and yet not release it from obscurity For if this motive ground or formall Object of Faith were any thing evidently presented to our understanding and if also we did evidently know that it had a necessary connection with the Articles which we believe our assent to such Articles could not be obscure but evident which as we said is against the nature of our Faith If likewise the motive or ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us but were not in it selfe infallible it would leave our assent in obscurity but could not endue it with certainty We must therefore for the ground of our Faith find out a motive obscure to us but most certain in it selfe that the act of faith may remaine both obscure and certain Such a motive as this can be no other but the divine authority of almighty God revealing or speaking those truths which our faith believes For it is manifest that God's infallible testimony may transfuse Certainty to our faith and yet not draw it out of obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can evince that God revealeth any supernaturall Truth since God had beene no lesse perfect then he is although he had never revealed any of those objects which we now believe 4 Neverthelesse because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdome and sweetnesse doth concurre with his Creatures in such sort as may be fit the temper exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endued with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Vnderstanding any other then as the Apostle saith rationabile obsâ—â—uium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appeare if our Vnderstanding were summoned to believe with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certain And therâ—fore Almighty God obliging us under paine of eternall damnation to believe with greatest certainty divers verities not knowne by the light of naturall reason cannot saylâ— to furnish our Vnderstanding with such inducements motives and arguments as may sufficiently perswade any mind which is not partiall or passionate that the objects which we believe proceed from an Authority so Wise that it cannot be deceived so Good that it cannot deceive according to the words of David Thy Testimonies are made credible exceedingly These inducements are by Divines called argumeÌ„ta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in true wisdome prudence the objects of â—aith deserve credit ought to be accepted as things revealed by God For without such reasons inducemeÌ„ts our judgment of faith could not be conceived prudent holy Scripture telling us that he who soone believes is light of heart By these arguments and inducements our Vnderstanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility and the objects of faith retaine their obscurity because it is a different thing to bee evidently credible and evidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wroughâ— by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not evidently see their doctrine to be true for then it had not been Faith but Science and all had been necessitated to believe which we see fell out otherwise but they were evidently convinced that the things confirmed by such Miracles were most credible and worthy to be imbraced as truths revealed by God 5. These evident Arguments of Credibility are in great abundance found in the Visible Church of Christ perpetually existing on earth For that there hath been a company of men professing such and such doctrines we have from our next Predecessours and these from theirs upward till we come to the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour which gradation is knowne by evidence of sense by reading bookes or hearing what one man delivers to another And it is evident that there was neither cause nor possibility that men so distant in place so different in temper so repugnant in private ends did or could agree to tell one and the selfe same thing if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves as ancient Tertullian well saith How is it likely that so many and so great Churches should erre in one faith Among many events there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs have varied But that which among many is found to be One is not mistaken but delivered Dare then any body say that they erred who delivered it With this never interrupted existence of the Church are joyned the many and great miracles wrought by men of that Congregation or Church the sanctity of the persons the renowned victories over so many persecutions both of all sorts of men and of the infernall spirits and lastly the perpetuall existence of so holy a Church being brought up to the Apostles themselves she comes to partake of the same assurance of truth which They by so many powerfull wayes did communicate to their Doctrine and to the Church of their times together with the divine Certainty which they received from our Blessed Saviour himselfe revealing to Man-kind what he heard from his Fatheâ— and so we conclude with Tertullian We receive it from the Churches the Churches from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made knowne by meanes of holy Tradition we cannot conjoyn the present Church and doctrine with the Church and doctrine of the Apostles but must invent some new meanes and arguments sufficient of themselves to find out and prove a true Church and faith independently of the preaching and writing of the Apostles neither of which can be knowne but by Tradition as is truely observed by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that there is no meanes to prove what the Apostles preached but by the same Church which they founded 6 Thus then we are to proceed By evidence of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath alwaies been a never-interrupted Succession of men from the Apostles time believing professing and practising such and such doctrines By evident arguments of credibility as Miracles Sancâ—â—ty Vnity c. and by all those wayes whereby the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour
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
that although the Waldenses Wicliffe c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine yet they could not bragge of Succession from them because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 24 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrine cannot stand with that Vniversality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sectâ— which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Vniversality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such locall multiplication doth more more lay open their division want of Succession in Doctrine For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiell My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he addes this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques are spread over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth some here some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresy in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotamia In divers places they are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Vnion And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not thy selfe goe forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and feed thy kids he saith If thou know not thy selfe goe thou forth I doe not cast thee out but goe thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Goe thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flock but of divers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed my sheepe but seed thy Kids in the Tabernacles of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is one flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set down the Markes of Heresy to wit going out from the Church and Want of Vnity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ. And so it being Proved that Protestants having neither succession of Persons nor Doctrine nor Vniversality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresy 25 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresy against the Negative Precept of faith which obligeth us under pain of damnation not to imbrace any one errour contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God Which were enough to make good that among Persons who disagree many one point of Faith one part only can be saved Yet we will now prove that Whosoever erreth in any one point doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith whereby we are obliged positively to believe some revealed truth with an infallible and supernaturall Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate finis or meâ—ii as Divines speak that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the use of Reason was or can be saved without it according to the words of the Apostle Without Faith it is impossible to please God 26 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurtty Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will proue to bee wanting in the beliefe of Protestants even in those points which are true in themseluâ—s and to which they yeeld assent as hapeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine Faith want meanes absolutely necessary to salvation 27 And first that their beliefe wanteth Certainty I proue because denying the Vniversall infallibility of the Church can haue no certain grouÌ„nd to know what Objects are â—evealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but without the direction declaration of the Church we can neither haue certain means to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faithfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his own opinions be true and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of divers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew thaâ— some of them are deceaved And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamentall points upon the selfe same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority but according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach doe sometimes faile it is cleer that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to lead them to errour As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths withall divers errours upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith bâ—t only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 28 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that every errour in fundamentall points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points bee fundamentall it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation 29 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Divine faith is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether he who denieth one Article of faith may retain faith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumentâ— sed contra because As deadly sin is opposits to Charity so to deny one Article of faith is opposite to faith But Charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin therefore faith doth not remain after the deniall of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formall Motiue and Obiect thereof which Motiue being taken away the
nature of the habit cannot remain But the formall Obiect of faith is the supreme truth as it is manifested in Scriptures and in the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the same supreme verity Whosoever therefore doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church which proceeds from the supreme verity manifested in Scripture as upon an infallible Rule hee hath not the habit of faith but belieues those things which belong to faith by some other me anes then by faith as if one should remember some Conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is cleer that hee hath not certain knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that hee who relies on the doctrine of the Church as upon an infallible Rule will yeeld his assent to all that the Church teacheth For if among those things which she teacheth he hold what he will and doth not hold what he will not hee doth not rely upon the doctrine of the Church as upon an infallible Rule but only upon his own will And so it is cleer that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of faith is not ready to follow the doctrine of the Church in all things And therefore it is manifest that whosoever is an Heretique in any one Article of faith concerning other Articles hath not saith but a kind of Opinion or his own will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth belieue all the Articles of faith for one and the selfe same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture understood aright according to the Doctrine of the Church and therefore whosoever fals from this reason or motiue is totally deprived of faith From this true doctrine wee are to infer that to retain or want the substance of faith doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against Gods divine testimony which is involved in every least error against faith And since some Protestants must needs erre and that they haue no certain rule to knowe why rather one then another it manifestly follows that none of them haue any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreover D. Potter being forced to confesse that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith it follows that she doth not erre in any one point against faith because as we haue seen out of S. Thomas every such errour destroies the substance of faith Now if the Roman Church did not erre in any one point of faith it is manifest that Protestants erre in all those points wherein they are contrary to her And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility 30 And now for the second Condition of faith I say If Protestants haue Certainty they want Obscurity and so haue not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessiâ—ating our Vnderstanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonicall Scriptures is cleer and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation Now these Principles being once supposed it cleerly followeth that what Protestants belieue as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in the word of God is true But it is certain and evident that these Books in particular are the word of God Therefore it is certaine and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true Which Conclusion I take for a Maior in a second Argument and say thus It is certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true but it is certain and evident that such particular Articles for example the Trinity Incarnation Originall sin c. are contained in these Books Therefore it is certain and evident that these particular Objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said Principles are not evident by naturall discourse but onely to the eye of reason cleered by grace as you speak For supernaturall evidence no lesse yea rather more drawes and excludes obscurity then naturall evidence doth neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by a necessity made captive and forced not to disbelieve what is presented by so cleare a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own 31 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hath been said What wisdome was it to forsake a Church confessedly very ancient and besides which there could be demonstrated no other visible Church of Christ upon earth A Church acknowledged to want nothing necessary to Salvation endued with Succession of Bishops with Visibility and Vniversality of Time and Place A Church which if it bee not the true Church her enemies cannot pretend to have any Church Ordination Scriptures Succession c. and are forced for their own sake to maintain her perpetuall Existence and Being To leave I say such a Church and frame a Community without either Vnity or means to procure it a Church which at Luthers first revolt had no larger extent then where his body was A Church without Vniversality of place or Time A Church which can pretend no Visibility or Being except only in that former Church which it opposeth A Church void of Succession of Persons oâ— Doctrine What wisedome was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the visible Church of Christ begun upon meer passion What wisdome is it to receive from Vs a Church Ordination Scriptures Personall Succession and not Succession of Doctrine Is not this to verifie the name of Heresie which signifieth Election or Choice Whereby they cannot avoid that note of Imprudency or as S. Augustine calls it Foolishnesse set down by him against the Manichees and by me recited before I would not saith he belieue the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Church did moue me Those therefore whom I obeyed saying Belieue the Gospel why should I not obey the same meÌ„ saying to me Doe not belieue Manichaeus Luther Calvin c. Choose what thou pleasest If thou say Belieue the Catholiques they warne me not to belieue thee Wherefore if I belieue them I cannot belieue thee If thou say Doe not belieue the Catholiques thou shalt not doe well in forcing me to the faith of Manichaeus because by the Preaching of Catholiques I believed the Gospell it selfe If thou say you did well to belieue them Catholiques commending the Gospell but you did not well to belieue them discommending Manichaeus dost thou think me so very FOOLISH that without any reason at all I should belieue what
thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnesse but meer Maâ—nesse in these words Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of those before all others by whose Authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the Beliefe thereof had been recommended by thee to me Thâ— therefore I believed by fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent Antiquitie But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing which deserues Authority What MADNESSE is this Belieue them Catholiques that we ought to belieue Christ but learne of us what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach mee any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then I should learne any thing concerning him from other then those by whom I believed him Lastly I aske what wisedome it could bee to leaue all visible Churches and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to salvation and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fundamentalls and follow private men who may erre even in points necessary to salvation Especially if we adde that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome and them who agreed with her in which sense she was and is the only true Church of Christ and not capable of any Error in faith Nay even Luther who first opposed the Roman Church yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques he is forced to give the Lye both to his own words and deeds in saying We freely confesse that in the Papacy there are many good things worthy the name of Christian which have come from them to us Namely we confesse that in the Papacy there is true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Altar the true keys for remission of sinnes the true office of Preaching true Catechisme as our Lords Prayer Ten Commandements Articles of faith c. And afterward I avouch that under the Papacy there is true Christianity yea the Kernell and Marrow of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And again he affirmeth that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit Gospells Faith Baptisme Sacraments the Keyes the Office of Preaching Prayer Holy Scripture and whatsoever Christianity ought to have And a little before I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme only to this end that they may spight the Pope as men that will receive nothing from Antichrist no otherwise then the Sacramentaries doe who therefore believe only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament meerely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome and they think that by this meanes they shall overcome the Papacy Verily these men rely upon a weak ground for by this meanes they must deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For we have all these things from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture O Truth more forcible as S. Austine saies to wring out Confession then is any racke or torment And so we may truly say with Moyses Inimici nostri sunt Iudices Our very Enemies give sentence for us 32 Lastly since your faith wanteth Certainty and Prudence it is easy to inferre that it wants the fourth Condition Supernaturality For being but an Humane perswasion or Opinion it is not in nature or Essence Supernaturall And being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from divine Motion and grace and therefore it is neither supernaturall in it selfe nor in the cause from which it proceedeth 33 Since therefore we have proved that whosoever erres against any one point of faith looseth all divine faith even concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre and that although he could still retaine true faith for some points yet any one errour in whatsoever other matter concerning faith is a grievous sinne it cleerely followes that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning faith and Religion there can be but one Part saved For declaring of which truth if Catholiques be charged with Want of Charity and Modesty and be accused of rashnesse ambition and fury as D. Potter is very free in this kind I desire every one to ponder the words of S. Chrysostome who teacheth that every least errour overthrowes all faith and whosoever is guilty thereof is in the Church like one who in the Common wealth forgeth false come Let them heare saith this holy Father what S. Paul saith Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrown the Gospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he said that the Gospell was subverted For as he who clips a little of the stamp from the Kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound faith is wholly corrupted alwaies going from that beginning to worse things Where then are they who condemne us as contentious persons because we cannot agree with Heretiques and doe often say that there is no difference betwixt us and them but that our disagreement proceeds from Ambition to dominere And thus having shewed that Protestants want true Faith it remaineth that according to my first designe I examine whether they doe not also want Charity as it respects a mans selfe THE ANSVVER TO THE SIXTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not Heretiques HE that will accuse any one man much more any great multitude of men of any great and horrible crime should in all reason and justice take care that the greatnesse of his evidence doe equall if not exceed the quality of the crime And such an accusation you would here make shew of by pretending first to lay such grounds of it as are either already proved or else yeelded on all sides and after to raise a firme and stable structure of convincing arguments upon them But both these I find to be meere and vaine pretences and having considered this Chapter also without prejudice or passion as I did the former I am enforc'd by the light of Truth to pronounce your whole discourse a painted and ruinous Building upon a weak sandy Foundation 2 Ad § 2. 3. First for your grounds a great part of theÌ„ is falsely said to be either proved or granted It is true indeed that Man by his naturall wit or industry could never have attained to the knowledge of Gods will to give him a supernaturall and eternall happinesse nor of the meanes by which his pleasure was to bestow this happinesse upon him And therefore your first ground is good That it was requisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and meanes by a knowledge supernaturall I say this is good if you mean
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
that time did then whosoever communicates with him cannot but communicate with the Catholique Church and then by accident one may truly say such a one communicates with you that is with the Catholique Church and that to communicate with him is to communicate with the Catholique Church As if Titius and Sompronius be together he that is in company with Titius cannot but be at that time in company with Sempronius As if a Generall be marching to some place with an Army he that then is with the Generall must at that time be with the Army And a man may say without absurdity such a time I was with the Generall that is with the Army and that to be with the Generall is to be with the Army Or as if a mans hand be joyned to his body the finger which is joyned to the hand is joyned to the body and a man may say truly of it this finger is joyned to the hand that is to the body and to be joyned to the hand is to be joyned to the Body because all these things are by accident true And yet I hope you would not deny but the finger might possibly be joyned to the hand and yet not to the Body the hand being cut off from the Body and a man might another time be with his Generall and not with his Army he being absent from the Army And therefore by like Reason your collection is sophisticall being in effect but this to communicate with such a Bishop of Rome who did communicate with the Catholique Church was to Communicate with the Catholique Church therefore absolutely and alwaies it must be true that to communicate with him is by consequent to communicate with the Catholique Church and to be divided from his Communion is to be an Heretique 28 In urging the place of Irenaeus you have shewed much more ingenuity then many of your Fellowes For whereas they usually beginne at Declaring the Tradition of the c. and conceale what goes before you have set it down though not so compleatly as you should have done yet sufficiently to shew that what Authority in the matter he attributed to the Roman Church in particular the same for the kind though perhaps not in the same degree he attributed to all other Apostolique Churches Either therefore you must say that he conceived the Testimony of other Apostolique Churches divine and infallible which certainly he did not neither doe you pretend he did and if he had the confessed Errors and Heresies which after they fell into would demonstrate plainly that he had erred or else that he conceived the testimony of the Roman Church only humane and credible though perhaps more credible then any one Church beside as one mans Testimony is more credible then anothers but certainly much more Credible which was enough for his purpose then that secret Tradition to which those Heretiques pretended against whom he wrote overbearing them with an argument of their own kinde farre stronger then their own Now if Irenaeus thought the Testimony of the Roman Church in this point only humane and fallible then surely he could never think either adhering to it a certain marke of a Catholique or separation from it a certain marke of a Heretique 29 Again whereas your great Achilles Cardinall Perron in French as also his noble Translatresse misled by him in English knowing that mens resorting to Rome would doe his cause little service hath made bold with the Latine tongue as he does very often with the Greek and rendred Ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam To this Church it is necessary that every Church should agree you have Translated it as it should be to this Church it is necessary that all Churches resort wherein you have shewed more sincerity and have had more regard to make the Author speak sense For if he had said By shewing the Tradition of the Roman Church we confound all Heretiques For to this Church all Churches must agree what had this been but to give for a reason that which was more questionable then the thing in question as being neither evident in it selfe and plainly denied by his adversaries and not at all proved nor offered to be proved here or elsewhere by Irenaeus To speak thus therefore had been weak and ridiculous But on the other side if we conceive him to say thus You Heretiques decline a tryall of your Doctrine by Scripture as being corrupted and imperfect and not fit to determine Controversies without recourse to Tradition and instead hereof you fly for refuge to a secret Tradition which you pretend that you received from your Ancestors and they from the Apostles certainly your calumnies against Scripture are most uniust and unreasonable but yet moreover assure your selves that if you will be tryed by Tradition even by that also you will be overthrown For our Tradition is farre more famous more constant and in all respects more credible then that which you pretend to It were easy for me to muster up against you the uninterrupted successions of all the Churches founded by the Apostles all conspiring in their Testimonies against you But because it were too long to number up the Successions of all Churches I will content my selfe with the Tradition of the most ancient and most glorious Church of Rome which alone is sufficient for the confutation and confusion of your Doctrine as being in credit and authority as farre beyond the Tradition you build upon as the light of the Sunne is beyond the light of the Gloworme For to this Church by reason it is placed in the Imperiall Citty whither all mens affaires doe necessarily draw them or by reason of the powerfull Principality it hath over all the adiacent Churches there is and alwaies hath been a necessity of a perpetuall recourse of all the faithfull round about who if there had been any alteration in the Church of Rome could not in all probability but have observed it But they to the contrary have alwaies observed in this Church the very Tradition which came from the Apostles and no other I say if we conceive his meaning thus his words will be intelligible and rationall which if in stead of resort we put in agree will be quite lost Herein therefore we have been beholding to your honesty which makes me think you did not wittingly falsify but only twice in this sentence mistake Vndique for Vbique and Translate it every where and of what place soever in stead of round about For that it was necessary for all the faithfull of what place soever to resort to Rome is not true That the Apostolike Tradition hath alwaies been conserved there from those who are every where is not Sense Now instead of conservata read observata as in all probability it should be and translate undique truly round about and then the sense will be both plain and good for then it must be rendred thus For to this Church by reason
ages after For example In mutilation of the Communion in having your Service in such a language as the Assistants generally understand nor your offering to Saints your picturing of God your worshipping of Pictures 42 Ad § 24. As for Vniversality of place the want whereof you object to Protestants as a marke of Heresie You have not set down cleerely and univocally what you mean by it whether universality of fact or of right and if of fact whether absolute or comparative and if comparative whether of the Church in comparisō of any other Religion or only of Hereticall Christians or if in comparison of these whether in comparison of all other Sects conjoyn'd or in comparison only of any One of them Nor have you proved it by any good argument in any sense to be a certain mark of Heresy For those places of S. Austine doe not deserve the name And truly in my judgement you have done advisedly in proving it no better For as for Vniversality of right or a right to Vniversality all Religions claime it but only the true has it and which has it cannot be determin'd unlesse it first be determin'd which is the true An absolute Vniversality and diffusion through all the world if you should pretend to all the world would laugh at you If you should contend for latitude with any one Religion Mahumetisme would carry the victory from you If you should oppose your selves against all other Christians besides you it is certain you would be cast in this suit also If lastly being hard driven you should please you selves with being more then any one Sect of Christiās it would presently be replied that it is ūcertain whether now you are so but most certain that the time has been when you have not been so Then when the whole world wondred that it was become Arrian then when Athanasius oppos'd the world and the world Athanasius then when your Liberius having the contemptible paucity of his adherents objected to him as a note of error answered for himselfe There was a time when there were but three opposed the decree of the King and yet those three were in the right and the rest in the wrong then when the Professors of error surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion as the sands of the Sea doe the Starres of the Heaven As S. Austine acknowledgeth then when Vincentius confesseth that the poyson of the Arrians had contaminated not now some certain portion but almost the whole World then when the author of Nazianzens life testifies That the Heresy of Arrius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world and when Nazianzen found cause to cry out Where are they who reproach us with our pouerty who define the Church by the multitude and despise the little flock They have the People but we the faith And lastly when Athanasius was so overborn with Sholes floods of Arriās that he was enforc'd to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of adherents So that if you had prov'd want of Universality even thus restrained to be an infallible note of Heresy there would have been no remedy but you must have confessed that the time was when you were Heretiques And besides I see not how you would have avoided this great inconvenience of laying grounds and storeing up arguments for Antichrist against he comes by which he may prove his Company the true Church For it is evident out of Scripture and confessed by you that though his time be not long his dominion shall be very large and that the true Church shall be then the woman driven into the wildernesse 43 Ad § 25. 26. The remainder of this Chapter if I would deale strictly with you I might let passe as impertinent to the question now disputed For whereas your argument promises that this whole Chapter shall be imploied in proving Luther the Protestants guilty of Heresy here you desert this question and strike out into another accusation of them that their faith even of the truth they hold is not indeed true faith But put case it were not does it follow that the having of this faith makes them Heretiques or that they are therefore Heretiques because they have this faith Aristotle beleeved there were Intelligences which moved the Spheares he believed this with an humane perswasion and not with a certain obscure prudent supernaturall faith and will you make Aristotle an Heretique because he believed so You believe there was such a man as Iulius Caesar that there is such a City as Constantinople and your beliefe here of has not these qualifications which you require And will you be content that this shall passe for a sufficient proofe that you are an Heretique Heresy you have defin'd above to be a voluntary error but he that believes truth though his belief be not qualified according to your minde yet sure in believing truth he believes no error from hence according to ordinary Logick methinkes it should follow that such a man for doing so cannot be guilty of Heresy 44 But you will say though he be not guilty of Heresy for believing these truths yet if his faith be not saving to what purpose will it be Truly very litle to the purpose of Salvation as litle as it is to your proving Protestants guilty of Heresy But out of our wonted indulgence let us pardon this fault also and doe you the favour to hear what you can say to beget this faith in us that indeed wee have no faith or at least not such a faith without which it is impossible to please God Your discourse upon this point you have I know not upon what policie disjoynted and given us the grounds of it in the begining of the Chapter and the superstructure here in the end Them I have already examined and for a great part of them proved them vain and deceitfull I have shewed by many certain arguments that though the subject matter of our faith be in it selfe most certain yet that absolute certainty of adherence is not required to the essence of faith no nor to make it acceptable with God but that to both these effects it is sufficient if it be firme enough to produce Obedience and Charity I haue shewed besides that Prudence is rather commendable in faith then intrinsecall and essentiall to it So that whatsoever is here said to prove the faith of Protestants no faith for want of certainty or for want of prudence is already answered before it is objected for the foundation being destroyed the building cannot stand Yet for the fuller refutation of all pretences I will here make good that to prove our faith destitute of these qualifications you have produc'd but vain Sophismes and for the most part such arguments as returne most violently upon your selves Thus then you say 45 First that their belief wanteth
certainty I prove because they denying the universall Infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what objects are revealed or testified by God But if there be no other ground of certainty but your Churches infallibility upon what certain ground doe you know that your Church is infallible Upon what certain ground doe you know all those things which must be known before you can know that your Church is infallible As that there is a God that God hath promised his assistance to your Church in all her Decrees that the Scripture wherein this promise is extant is the word of God that those texts of Scripture which you alleage for your infallibility are incorrupted that that which you pretend is the true sense of them When you have produc'd certain grounds for all these things I doubt not but it will appeare that we also may have grounds certain enough to believe our whole Religion which is nothing else but the Bible without dependance on the Churches infallibility Suppose you should meet with a man that for the present believes neither Church nor Scripture nor God but is ready willing to believe them all if you can shew some sufficient grounds to build his faith upon will you tell such a man there are no certain grounds by which he may be converted or there are If you say the first you make all Religion an uncertain thing If the second then either you must ridiculously perswade that your Church is infallible because it is infallible or else that there are other certain grounds besides your Churches infallibility 46 But you proceed and tell us that Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain meanes to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faithfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Answ. But all these things must be known before we can know the direction of your Church to be infallible for no other proofe of it can be pretended but only some Texts of Canonicall Scripture truly interpreted Therefore either you are mistaken in thinking there is no other meanes to know these things but your Churches infallible direction or we are excluded from all meanes of knowing her direction to be infallible 47 But Protestants though as you suppose they are perswaded their own oponions are true and that they have used such meanes as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer conferring of Texts c. Yet by their disagreement shew that some of them are deceived Now they hold all the Articles of their faith upon this only ground of Scripture interpreted by these rules and therefore it is cleere that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all The first of these suppositions must needs be true but the second is apparently false I mean that every Protestant is perswaded that he hath used those means which are prescribed for understanding of Scripture But that which you collect from these suppositions is cleerely inconsequent and by as good Logick you might conclude that Logick and Geometry stand upon no certain grounds that the rules of the one and the principles of the other doe sometimes faile because the disagreement of Logicians and Geometricians shew that some of them are deceived Might not a Iew conclude as well against all Christians that they have no certain ground whereon to rely in their understanding of Scripture because their disagreements shew that some are deceived because some deduce from it the infallibility of a Church and others no such matter So likewise a Turke might use the same argument against both Iewes and Christians and an Atheist against all Religions and a Sceptick against all reason Might not the one say Mens disagreement in Religion shew that there is no certainty in any and the other that experience of their contradictions teacheth that the rules of reason doe sometimes faile Doe not you see and feele how void of reason and how full of impiety your sophistry is And how transported with zeale against Protestants you urge arguments against them which if they could not be answered would overthrow not only your own but all Religion But God be thanked the answere is easy and obvious For let men but remember not to impute the faults of men but only to men and then it will easily appear that there may be sufficient certainty in reason in Religion in the rules of interpreting Scripture though men through their faults take not care to make use of them and so run into divers errors and dissentions 48 But Protestants cannot determine what points be fundamentall and therefore must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error Ans. By like reason since you acknowledge that every error in points defin'd and declared by your Church destroies the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be defined it followeth that you must remain uncertain whether or no you be not in some fundamentall error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation Now that you are uncertain what points are defined appeares from your owne words c. 4. § 3. of your second Part where say you No lesse impertinent is your discourse concerning the difficulty to know what is Heresy For we grant that it is not alwaies easy to determine in particular occasions whether this or that Doctrine be such because it may be doubtfull whether it be against any Scripture or divine Tradition or Definition of the Church Neither were it difficult to extort from you this confession by naming diverse Points which some of you say are defin'd others the contrary And others hang in suspense and know not what to determine But this I have done elsewhere as also I have shewed plainly enough that though we cannot perhaps say in particular thus much and no more is fundamentall yet believing all the Bible we are certain enough that we believe all that is fundamentall As he that in a receit takes twenty ingredients whereoften only are necessary though he know not which those ten are yet taking the whole twenty he is sure enough that he has taken all that are necessary 49 Ad § 29. But that he who erreth against any one revealed truth looseth all Divine Faith is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines you mean your own with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censur'd as temerarious Now certainly some Protestants must doe so because they hold contradictions which cannot all be true Therefore some of them at least have no divine faith Ans. I passe by your weaknesse in urging Protestants with the authority of your Divines which yet in you might very deservedly be censur'd For when D. Potter to shew the many actuall dissentions between the Romish Doctors notwithstanding their braggs of potentiall Vnity referres
is still to believe them and as he did hold so he is still to hold them Thus he subioyning more to the same purpose in the next and again in the 26. Chapter and in his third book De Bapt. contr Donat. cap. ult and upon Psal. 64. But now this reason seems to perswade the contrary Because the formall obiect of faith seemes to be the first verity as it is manifested by the Churches Doctrine as the Divine and infallible Rule wherefore whosoever adheres not to this Rule although he assent to some matters of faith yet he embraces them not with faith but with some other kinde of assent as if a man assent to a conclusion not knowing the reason by which it is demonstrated he hath not true knowledge but an opinion only of the same conclusion Now that an Heretique adheres not to the râ—le aforesaid it is manifest Because if he did adhere to it as divine and infallible he would receive all without exception which the Church teacheth and so would not be an Heretique After this manner discourseth S. Thom. 2. 2. q. 5. art 3. From whom yet Dur and dissents upon this distinction thinking there may be in an Heretique true faith in respect of the Articles in which he doth not erre Others as Scotus and Bonaventure define not the matter plainly but seeme to choose a middle way To the authority of S. Austine and these Schoolemeâ— this may be adjoyned That it is usuall with good Christians to say that Heretiques have not the entire faith Whereby it seemes to be intimated that some part of it they doe retaine Whereof this may be another reason That if the truths which a Iew or a Heretique holds he should not hold them by faith but after some other manner to wit by his own proper will and judgement it will follow that all that excellent knowledge of God and divine things which is found in them is to be attributed not to the grace of God but the strength of Free will which is against S. Austine both elsewhere and especially in the end of his book De potentia As for the reason alleaged to the contrary We answer It is impertinent to faith by what meanes we believe the prime Verity that is by what meanes God useth to conferre upon men the gift of Faith For although now the ordinary meanes be the Testimony and teaching of the Church yet it is certain that by other meanes faith hath been given heretofore and is given still For many of the Ancients as Adam Abraham Melchisedeck Iob received faith by speciall revelation the Apostles by the Miracles and Preaching of Christ others again by the Preaching and miracles of the Apostles and Lastly others by other meanes when as yet they had heard nothing of the infallibility of the Church to little Children by Baptisme without any other help faith is infus'd And therefore it is possible that a man not adhering to the Churches doctrine as a Rule infallible yet may receive some things for the word of God which doe indeed truly belong to the faith either because they are now or heretofore have been confirm'd by miracles Or because he manifestly sees that the ancient Church taught so or upon some other inducement And yet neverthelesse we must not say that Heretiques and Iewes doe hold the Faith but only some part of the Faith For the Faith signifies an entire thing and compleat in all parts whereupon an Heretique is said to be simply an Infidell to have lost the Faith and according to the Apostle 1. Tim. 1. to have made shipwrack of it although he holds some things with the same strength of assent and readinesse of will wherewith by others are held all those points which appertaine to the Faith And thus farre Estius Whose discourse I presume may passe for a sufficient refutation of your argumeÌ„t out of Aquinas And therefore your Corollaries drawn from it That every error against faith involves opposition against Gods testimony That Protestants have no Faith no certainty and that you have all Faith must together with it fall to the ground 50 But if Protestants have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing This argument you prosecute in the next Paragraph But I can find nothing in it to convince or perswade me that Protestants cannot have as much certainty as is required to faith of an object not so evident as to beget science If obscurity will not consist with certainty in the highest degree then you are to blame for requiring to faith contradicting conditions If certainty and obscurity will stand together what reason can be imagin'd that a Protestant may not entertain them both as well as a Papist Your bodies souls your understandings and wills are I think of the same condition with ours And why then may not we be certain of an obscure thing as well as you And as you made this long discourse against Protestants why may not wee putting Church instead of Scripture send it back again to you And say If Papists have certainty they want obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or not necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Papists is setled on these two principles These particular propositions are the propositions of the Church And the sense and meaning of them is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to salvation Now these principles being one suppos'd it clearly followeth that what Papists beleeve as necessary to salvation is evidently known by them to be true by this argument It is certain and evident that whatsoever is the word of God or Divine Revelation is true But it is certain and evident that these propositions of the Church in particular are the word of God and Divine Revelations therefore it is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true Which Conclusion I take for a Major in a second argument and say thus It is certain and evident that all propositions of the Church are true But it is certain and evident that such particulars for example The lawfulnesse of the halfe Communion The lawfulnesse and expedience of Latine Service the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Indulgences c. are the Propositions of the Church therefore it is certain and evident that these particular objects are true Neither will it avail you to say that the said principles are not evident by naturall discourse but only by the eye of reason clear'd by grace For supernaturall evidence no lesse yea rather more drowns and excludes obscurity then naturall evidence doth Neither can the Partie so enlightned be said voluntarily to captivate his understanding to that light but rather his understanding is by necessity made captive and forc'd not to disbeleeve what is presented by so clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the
assuraneâ— whereon we rest b The whole Church that he speaks of seemes to be that particular Church wherein a man is bred and brought up and the authority of this he makes an argument which presseth a mans modesty more then his reason And in saying it seemes impudent to be of a contrary mind without cause he implyes There may be a just cause to be of a contrary mind and that then it were no impudence to be so c Therefore the authority of the Church is not the pause whereon we rest we had need of more assurance and the intrinsecall arguments afford it d Somewhat but not much untill it be back'd and inforced by farther reason it selfe therefore is not the farthest reason and the last resolution e Observe I pray our persuasion and the testimony of the Church concerning Scripture may be proved true therefore neither of them was in his account the farthest proofe f Naturall reason then built on principles common to all men is the last resolution unto which the Churches authority is but the first inducement a Neque enim sic pasuit integritas atque notitia literarum quamlibet illustris Episcopi custodiri quemadmodum scriptura Canonica tot linguarum literis ordine successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae cusâ—oditur contra quam non defuerunt tamen qui sub nonâ—â—ibus Apostolâ—rum multa confingereâ—t Frustra quidem Quia illa sic commendata sic celebrata sic nota est Ferum quid poâ—sit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate fundaâ—as etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae 〈◊〉 audaciae quod adversus eos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt fese erigere non praetermisit Aug. ep 48. ad Vincent contra Donat Rogat b In hac Germani textâ—s pervestigatione satis perspicue inter omnes constat nullum argumentum esse certius ac famius quam antiquorum probatorum codicum latinorum fidem c. sic Sixtus in praefat Pro Edit vulg c. 21. p. 99. Bell. deverbâ— Deil. 2. c. 11. p. 120. a See Greg. Mor. l. 19. c. 13. b Thus he testifies Com in Esa. c. 6. in these words Vnde Paulas Apost in Epist. ad Heb. quam Latina consuetudo non recipit and again in c. 8. in these In Ep. quâ—e ad Hebâ—aeos scribitur licet eam Latina Consuâ— etudo inter Canoincas Scripturas no recipiat c. * Contra Parmâ—a l. 5. in Prin. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Bellarm. de veâ—bo Dei l. 4. c 11. a Pag. 209. b Charity Mistaken cap. 8. Pagâ— 75. c Pag. 211 d Pag. 212 e Pag. 250 f Pag. 246. g Pag. 246. h Sub. Leon. â—0 Sess. 11. i Cap. 13. v. â— k Cap. ult v. 18. l Pag. 122. m Mar. 16. 18. n Ioan. 16. 13. o In his Sermons Serm. 2. pag. 50. p Pag. 150. q Ioan. c. 16. 13. c. â—4 16. r Pag. 151. 152. s Epist. 118. t Lib. 4. de Bapt. c. 24. u Lib. 10. de Gene â—i ad liter cap. 23. w Serm. 14. de verbis Apost c. 18. x See Protocoll Monâ—â—ch edit 2. p. 307. y Lib. 1. cont Crescon cap. 32. 34. z De â—nit Eccles c. 19. a De Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 5. cap. 23. b Hom. 4. c De Sacra Script p. 678. d â—p 119. e Instit. l. 4. Cap. 2 f Cent. Ep. Theol. ep 74. g In Assertionib art 36 h Tract 1. c. 2. Sect. 14. after F. i Cap. 1. v. 4. k Chark in the Tower disputation the 4. daies conference l Fox Act. Mon p. 402. m The Confession of Bohemia in the Harmony of Consessions pag. 253. n Tract 3. Sect. 7. vnder m. n. 15. o In his answer to a Popish pamphlet p. 68 p Vid. Gul. Reginald Calv. Turcis lib. â— c. 6. q Pag. 113. 114. Motton in his Treatise of the kingdome of Israel p. 94. r Pag. 121. s Pag. 122. t Comment in Mat. c. 16. u Pag. 123. w Pag. 253. x A moderate examination c. c. 1. paulò post initium y Pag. 126. a Pag. 241. b P. 215. c Pag. 75 d Pag. 97. e Mat. 16. f Ioan. 14. g Ioan. 16. h 1. Tim. c. 3. i Ephes. 4. k Pag. 151. 153. l Deutil cred cap. 8. a Prov. 16. 33. b Prov. 16. 10. c Prov. 21. 1. d Mat. 18. 20. e Mat. 2. 7. f Mat. 25. 2. g Mat. 28. 20. h Luk. 10. 16. i Heb. 13. 17. k Ephes. 4. 11. l 1. Tim. 3. 15. m Mat. 18. 17. n Mat. 7. 8. o Ia. 1. 5. p Isay. 59. 21. a Luk. 12. 48. b 6. Heb. 11. a 1. Cor. 11. 28. b 1. Cor. 14. 15. 16. 26. a De Corona Militis c. 3. 4. Where having recounted sundry unwritten Traditions then observed by Christâ—ans many whereof by the way notwithstanding the Councell of Trents profession to receive them and the written word with like affection of Piety are now rejected and neglected by the Church of Rome For example Immersion in Baptism Tasting a mixture of milke and honey presently after Abstaining from Bathes for a weeke after Accounting it an impiety to â—ray kneeling on the Lords day or between Easter and Pentecost I say having reckoned up these and other Traditions in the 3. chapt He addes another in the fourth of the Veiling of Women And then addes Since I find no law for this it followes that Tradition must have given this observation to custome which shall gaine in time Apostolique authority by the interpretation of the reason it By these examples therefore it is declared that the observing of unwritten Tradition being confirmed by custome may bee defended The perseverance of the observation being a good testimoâ—y of the goodnesse of the Tradition Now custome even in civill affaires where a Law is wanting passes for a law Neither is it materiall whether it be grounded on Scripture or reason seeing reason is commendâ—tion enough for a law Moreover if law be grounded on reason all that must be law which is so grounded A quocanq productum Whosoever is the producer of it Doe ye thinke it is not lawfull Omni fideli for every faithfull man to conceive and constitute Provided he constitute only what is not repugnant to Gods will what is conducible for discipline and available to salvation seeing the Lord sayes why even of our selves judge yee nor what is right And a little after This reason now demand saving the respect of the Tradition A quocunque Traditore ceâ—seâ—ur nec auctorem respiciens sed Auctoritatem From whatsoever Tradition it comes neither regard the Author but the Authority b Hier. * Perâ—on a Cap. 3. n. 3. b Pag. 216. c Pag 24â— e Pag. 216. f Pag. 216. g Pag. 216. h 2. 2 q. 1. Art 8. k Pag. 235 215. l 2 2. q. 1. art 8. ad 6 m Pag. 231. n De Peâ—cat Orig. lib. 2. c. 22 p Pap. 235. q Heb. 11. 6. r Pag. 35â— s
rather to commend the vertue of an enemy then to flatter the vice and imbecility of a friend And so much for this matter 24 Again what if the names of Priests and Altars so frequent in the ancient Fathers though not in the now Popish sense be now resum'd and more commonly used in England then of late times they were that so the colourable argument of their conformity which is but nominall with the ancient Church and our inconformity which the Governors of the Church would not have so much as nominall may be taken away from them and the Church of England may be put in a state in this regard more justifiable against the Roman then formerly it was being hereby enabled to say to Papists whensoever these names are objected we also use the names of Priests and Altars and yet believe neither the corporall Presence nor any Proper and propitiatory Sacrifice 25 What if Protestants be now put in mind that for exposition of Scripture they are bound by a Canon to follow the ancient Fathers which whosoever doth with syncerity it is utterly impossible he should be a Papist And it is most falsely said by you that you know that to some Protestants I cleerly demonstrated or ever so much as undertook or went about to demonstrate the contrary What if the Centurists be censur'd somewhat roundly by a Protestant Divine for affrming that the keeping of the Lords day was a thing indifferent for two hundred yeares Is there in all this or any part of it any kind of proofe of this scandalous calumny Certainly if you can make no better arguments then these and have so little judgement as to think these any you have great reason to decline conferences and Signior Con to prohibite you from writing books any more 26 As for the points of Doctrine wherein you pretend that these Divines begin of late to falter and to comply with the Church of Rome upon a due examination of particulars it will presently appear First that part of them alwaies have been and now are held constantly one way by them as the Authority of the Church in determining Controversies of faith though not the infallibility of it That there is Inherent Iustice though so imperfect that it cannot justify That there are Traditions though none necessary That charity is to be preferr'd before knowledge That good Works are not properly meritorious And lastly that faith alone justifies though that faith justifies not which is alone And secondly for the remainder that they every one of them have been anciently without breach of charity disputed among Protestants such for example were the Questions about the Popes being the Antichrist The lawfulnesse of some kind of prayers for the dead the Estate of the Fathers souls before Christs ascention Freewill Predestination Vniversall grace The Possibility of keeping Gods commandements The use of Pictures in the Church Wherein that there hath been anciently diversity of opinion amongst Protestants it is justifyed to my hand by a witnesse with you beyond exception even your great friend M. Brerely whose care exactnesse and fidelity you say in your Preface is so extraordinary great Consult him therefore Tract 3. Sect. 7. of his Apology And in the 9. 10. 11. 14. 24. 26. 27. 37. Subdivisions of that Section you shall see as in a mirror your selfe prov'd an egregious calumniator for charging Protestants with innovation and inclining to Popery under pretence forsooth that their Doctrine beginnes of late to be altered in these points Whereas M. Brerely will informe you they have been anciently and even from the begining of the Reformation controverted amongst them though perhaps the stream and current of their Doctors runne one way and only some brooke or rivulet of them the other 27 And thus my Friends I suppose are cleerely vindicated from your scandalls and calumnies It remaines now that in the last place I bring my selfe fairely off from your foule aspersions that so my person may not be as indeed howsoever it should not be any disadvantage or disparagement to the cause nor any scandall to weake Christians 28 Your injuries then to me no way deserved by me but by differing in opinion from you wherein yet you surely differ from me as much as I from you are especially three For first upon heereâ—ay refusing to give me oportunity of begetting in you a better understanding of me you charge me with a great number of false and impious doctrines which I will not name in particular because I will not assist you so farre in the spreading of my own undeserved defamation but whosoever teaches or holds them let him be Anathema The summe of them all cast up by your selfe in your first chap. is this Nothing ought or can be certainly believed farther then it may be proved by evidence of Naturall reason where I conceive Naturall reason is oppos'd to supernaturall Revelation and whosoever holds so let him be Anathema And moreover to clear my selfe once for all from all imputations of this nature which charge me injuriously with deniall of Supernaturall Verities I professe syncerely that I believe all those Books of Scripture which the Church of England accounts Canonicall to be the Infallible word of God I believe all things evidently contained in them all things evidently or even probably deducible from them I acknowledge all that to be Heresy which by the Act of Parliament primo of Q. ELIZ. is declar'd to be so only to be so And though in such points which may he held diversly of divers men salvâ Fidei compage I would not take any mans liberty from him and humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me Yet thus much I can say which I hope will satisfy any man of reason that whatsoever hath been held necessary to salvation either by the Catholique Church of all ages or by the consent of Fathers measur'd by Vincentius Lyrinensis his rule or is held necessary either by the Catholique Church of this age or by the consent of Protestants or even by the Church of England that against the Socinians and all others whatsoever I doe verily believe and embrace 29 Another great and manifest injury you have done me in charging me to have forsaken your Religion because it condus'd not to my temporall ends and suted not with my desires and designes Which certainly is a horrible crime whereof if you could convince me by just and strong presumptions I should then acknowledge my selfe to deserve that opinion which you would faine induce your credents unto that I chang'd not your Religion for any other but for none at all But of this great fault my conscience acquits me and God who only knowes the hearts of all men knowes that I am innocent Neither doubt I but all they who know me and amongst them many Persons of place and quality will say they have reason in this matter to be my compurgators And for you though you are very
affirmative in your accusation yet you neither doe nor can produce any proof or presumption for it but forgeting your selfe as it is Gods will oftimes that slanderers should doe have let fall some passages which being well weighed will make considering men apt to believe that you did not believe your selfe For how is it possible you should believe that I deserted your Religion for ends against the light of my conscience out of a desire of preferment and yet out of scruple of conscience should refuse which also you impute to me to subscribe the 39 Articles that is refuse to enter at the only common dore which here in England leads to preferment Again how incredible is it that you should believe that I forsooke the profession of your Religion as not suting with my desires and designes which yet reconciles the enjoying of the pleasures and profits of sinne here with the hope of happinesse hereafter and proposes as great hope of great temporall advancements to the capable servants of it as any nay more then any Religion in the world and instead of this should choose Socinianisme a Doctrine which howsoever erroneous in explicating the mysteries of Religion and allowing greater liberty of opinion in speculative matters then any other Company of Christians doth or they should doe yet certainly which you I am sure will pretend and maintaine to explicate the Lawes of Christ with more rigor and lesse indulgence and condescendence to the desires of flesh and blood then your Doctrine doth And besides such a Doctrine by which no man in his right mind can hope for any honour or preferment either in this Church or State or any other All which cleerely demonstrates that this foule and false aspersion which you have cast upon mee proceeds from no other fountaine but a heart abounding with the gall and bitternesse of uncharitablenesse and even blinded with malice towards me or else from a perverse zeale to your superstition which secretly suggests this perswasion to you That for the Catholique cause nothing is unlawfull but that you may make use of such indirect and crooked arts as these to blast my reputation and to possesse mens minds with disaffection to my person least otherwise peradventure they might with some indifference hear reason from me God I hope which bringeth light out of darknesse will turne your counsells to foolishnesse and give all good men grace to perceive how weak and ruinous that Religion must be which needs supportance from such tricks and devices So I call them because they deserve no better name For what are all these Personall matters which hitherto you have spoke of to the businesse in hand If it could be prov'd that Cardinall Bellarmine was indeed a Iew or that Cardinall Perron was an Atheist yet I presume you would not accept of this for an answer to all their writings in defence of your Religion Let then my actions and intentions and opinions be what they will yet I hope truth is neverthelesse truth nor reason ever the lesse Reason because I speak it And therefore the Christian Reader knowing that his Salvation or damnation depends upon his impartiall and sincere judgment of these things will guard himself I hope from these impostures and regard not the person but the cause and the reasons of it not who speakes but what is spoken Which is all the favour I desire of him as knowing that I am desirous not to perswade him unlesse it be truth whereunto I perswade him 30 The third and laâ—t part of my Accusation was that I answer ouâ— of Principles which Protestants themselves will professe to detest which indeed were to the purpose if it could be justified But besides that it is confuted by my whole Book and made ridiculous by the Approbations premis'd unto it it is very easy for mee out of your own mouth and words to prove it a most injurious calumny For what one conclusion is there is the whole fabrick of my discourse that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle That all things necessary to salvation are evidently contain'd in Scripture Or what one Conclusion almost of importance is there in your Book which is not by this one cleerly confutable Grant this and it will presently follow in opposition to your first Conclusion and the argument of your first Ch that amongst men of different opinions touching the obscure and controverted Questions of ReligioÌ„ such as may with probability be disputed on both Sides and such as are the disputes of Protestants Good men and lovers of truth of all Sides may bee sav'd because all necessary things being suppos'd evident concerning them with men so qualified there will be no difference There being no more certain signe that a Point is not evident then that honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it 31 Grant this and it will appear Secondly that the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith necessary to be determined may be for any thing you have said to the contrary not a Church but the Scripture which contradicts the Doctrine of your Second Chapter 32 Grant this and the distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall will appear very good and pertinent For those truths will be fundamentall which are evidently delivered in Scripture and commanded to be preach't to all men Those not fundamentall which are obscure And nothing will hinder but that the Catholique Church may erre in the latter kind of the said points because Truths not necessary to the Salvation cannot be necessary to the being of a Church and because it is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther then to bring her to Salvation neither will there be any necessity at all of any infallible Guide either to consigne unwritten Traditions or to declare the obscurities of the faith Not for the former end because this Principle being granted true nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consign'd Nor for the latter because nothing that is obcsure can be necessary to be understood or not mistaken And so the discourse of your whole Third Chap will presently vanish 33 Fourthly for the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of simple belief though I see not how it may be deduc'd from this principle yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the Creed unnecessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confess'd to bee cleerly contain'd in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort bee contain'd in the Creed 34 Fiftly let this be granted and the immediate Corollary in opsition to your fift Ch will be and must be That not Protestants for rejecting but the Church of Rome for imposing upon the Faith of Christians Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary
and for disturbing the Churches peace and dividing Vnity for such matters is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismaticall 35 Grant this sixtly and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Heretiques seeing they believe all things evidently contain'd in Scripture which are suppos'd to be all that is necessary to be believed and so your Sixt Chapter is cleerly confuted 36 Grant this lastly and it will be undoubtedly consequent in contradiction of your seaventh Chapter that no man can shew more charity to himself then by continuing a Protestant seeing Protestants are suppos ' to believe and therefore may accordingly practise at least by their Religion are not hindred from practising and performing all things necessary to Salvation 37 So that the position of this one Principle is the direct overthrow of your whole Book and therefore I needed not nor indeed have I made use of any other Now this principle which is not only the corner stone or chief Pillar but even the base and adequate foundation of my Answer and which while it stands firme and unmoveable cannot but bee the supporter of my Book and the certain ruine of yours is so farre from being according to your pretence detested by all Protestants that all Protestants whatsoever as you may see in their Harmony of confessions unanimously professe and maintain it And you your selfe C. 6. § 30. plainly confesse as much in saying The whole Edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonicall Scripture And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation 38 And thus your venome against me is in a manner spent saving only that there remain two litle impertinencies whereby you would disable me from being a fit advocate for the cause of Protestants The first because I refuse to subscribe the Artic. of the Ch. of England The second because I have set down in writing motives which sometime induc'd mee to forsake Protestantisme and hitherto have not answered them 39 By the former of which objections it should seeme that either you conceive the 39 Articles the common Doctrine of all Protestants and if they be why have you so often upbraided them with their many and great differences Or else that it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England and not the common cause of all Protestants which is here undertaken by me which are certainly very grosse mistakes And yet why hee who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet bee fit enough to maintain that those who doe subscribe them are in a saveable condition I doe not understand Now though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absoluetly true which with reason cannot bee requir'd of mee while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all error destructive of Salvation or in it self damnable And this I think in reason may sufficiently qualifie me for a maintainer of this assertion that Protestancie destroies not Salvation For the Church of England I am perswaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodoxe that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no error in it which may necessitate or warrant any man to disturbe the peace or renounce the Communion of it This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription and thus much if you conceive mee not ready to subscribe your Charity I assure you is much mistaken 40 Your other objection against me is yet more impertinent and frivolous then the former Vnlesse perhaps it be a just exception against a Physitian that himself was sometimes in and recover'd himself from that disease which he undertakes to cure or against a guide in a way that at first before hee had experience himself mistook it and after wards found his error and amended it That noble writer Michael de Montai'gne was surely of a farre different mind for hee will hardly allow any Physitian competent but only for such diseases as himself had pass'd through And a farre greater then Montai'gne even he that said Tu conversus confirma fratres gives us sufficiently to understand that they which have themselves beene in such a state as to need conversion are not thereby made incapable of but rather engag'd and oblig'd unto and qualified for this charitable function 41 Neither am I guilty of that strange and preposterous zeale as you esteeme it which you impute to me for having been so long carelesse in removing this scandall against Protestants and answering my own Motives and yet now shewing such fervor in writing against others For neither are they other Motives but the very same for the most part with those which abused me against which this Book which I now publish is in a manner wholly imployed And besides though you Iesuits take upon you to have such large and universall intelligence of all state affaires and matters of importance yet I hope such a contemptible matter as an answer of mine to a litle peece of paper may very probably have been written and escaped your observation The truth is I made an answer to them three yeares since and better which perhaps might have been published but for two reasons one because the Motives were never publique untill you made them so the other because I was loath to proclaime to all the world so much weaknesse as I shewed in suffering my selfe to be abus'd by such silly Sophismes All which proceed upon mistakes and false suppositions which unadvisedly I took for granted as when I have set down the Motives in order by subsequent Answers to them I shall quickly demonstrate and so make an end The Motives then were these 1 Because perpetuall visible profession which could never be wanting to the Religion of Christ nor any part of it is apparently wanting to Protestant Religion so farre as concernes the points in contestation 2 Because Luther and his followers separating from the Church of Rome separated also from all Churches pure or impure true or false then being in the world upon which ground I conclude that either Gods promises did faile of performance if there were then no Church in the world which held all things necessary and nothing repugnant to Salvation or else that Luther and his Sectaries separating from all Churches then in the world and so from the true if there were any true were damnable Schismaticks 3 Because if any credit may be given to as creditable records as any are extant the Doctrine of Catholicks hath been frequently confirmed and the opposite doctrine of Protestants confounded with supernaturall and divine Miracles 4 Because many points of Protestant doctrine are the damned opinions of Hereticks condemned by the Primitive Church 5 Because the Prophecies of the old Testament touching the conversion of Kings and Nations to the true Religion of Christ
have been accomplished in and by the Catholicke Roman Religion and the Professors of it and not by Protestant Religion and the Professors of it 6 Because the doctrine of the Church of Rome is conformable and the doctrine of Protestants contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers of the Primitive Church even by the confession of Protestants themselves I meane those fathers who lived within the compasse of the first 600. years to whom Protestants themselves doe very frequently and very confidently appeale 7 Because the first pretended Reformers had neither extraordinary Commission from God nor ordinary Mission from the Church to preach Protestant Doctrine 8 Because Luther to preach against the Masse which containes the most materiall points now in controversy was perswaded by reasons suggested to him by the Divell himselfe disputing with him So himselfe professeth in his Book de Missa Privata That all men might take heed of following him who professeth himselfe to follow the Divell 9 Because the Protestant cause is now and hath been from the begining maintained with grosse falsifications and Calumnies whereof their prime Controversy writers are notoriously and in high degree guilty 10 Because by denying all humane authority either of Pope or Councells or Church to determine Controversies of Faith they have abolished all possible meanes of suppressing Heresy or restoring unity to the Church These are the Motives now my Answers to them follow brieâ—ly and in order 43 To the first God hath neither decreed nor foretold that his true Doctrine should de facto be alwaies visibly prfessed without any mixture of falshood To the second God hath neither decreed nor foretold that there shall be alwaies a visible company of men free from all error in it selfe damnable Neither is it alwaies of necessity Schismaticall to separate from the externall communion of a Church though wanting nothing necessary For if this Church suppos'd to want nothing necessary require me to professe against my conscience that I believe some error though never so small and innocent which I doe not believe and will not allow me her communion but upon this condition In this case the Church for requiring this condition is Schismaticall and not I for separating from the Church To the third If any credit may be given to Records farre more creditable then these the Doctrine of Protestants that is the Bible hath been confirm'd and the Doctrine of Papists which is in many points plainly opposite to it confounded with supernaturall and divine Miracles which for number and glory outshine Popish pretended Miracles as much as the Sunne doth an Ignis fatuus those I mean which were wrought by our Saviour Christ and his Apostles Now this book by the confession of all sides confirm'd by innumerous Miracles foretels me plainly that in after ages great signes and wonders shall be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine and that I am not to believe any doctrine which seemes to my understanding repugnant to the first though an Angell from Heaven should teach it which were certainly as great a Miracle as any that was ever wrought in attestation of any part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome But that true doctrine should in all ages have the testimony of Miracles that I am no where taught So that I have more reason to suspect and be afraid of pretended Miracles as signes of false doctrine then much to regard them as certain arguments of the truth Besides setting aside the Bible the Tradition of it there is as good story for Miracles wrought by those who lived and died in opposition to the Doctrine of the Roman Church as by S. Cyprian Colmannus Columbanus Aidanus and others as there is for those that are pretended to be wrought by the members of that Church Lastly it seemes to me no strange thing that God in his Iustice should permit some true Miracles to be wrought to delude them who have forged so many as apparently the professors of the Roman Doctrine have to abuse the World To the fourth All those were not Heretiques which by Philastrius Epiphanius or S. Austine were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques To the fift Kings and Nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary Religions To the sixt The Doctrine of Papists is confess'd by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points To the seaventh The Pastors of a Church cannot but have authority from it to preach against the abuses of it whether in Doctrine or practice if there be any in it Neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission from God to doe a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner when there is no body else that can or will doe it In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed If some Christian Lay-man should come into a country of Infidels had ability to perswade them to Christianity who would say he might not use it for want of Commission To the eighth Luthers conference with the Divell might be for ought I know nothing but a melancholy dreame If it were reall the Divell might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it Or that others would make his diswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists doe and be afraid of following Luther as confessing himselfe to have been perswaded by the Divell To the ninth Illiacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants Even this very author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and calumnies To the tenth Let all men believe the Scripture and that only and endeavour to believe it in the true sense and require no more of others and they shall finde this not only a better but the only meanes to suppresse Heresy and restore Unity For he that believes the Scripture sincerely and endeavours to believe it in the true sense cannot possibly be an Heretique And if no more then this were requir'd of any man to make him capable of the Churches Communion then all men so qualified though they were different in opinion yet notwithstanding any such difference must be of necessity one in Communion The Preface to the READER GIVE me leave good Reader to informe thee by way of Preface of three points The first concernes D. Potters Answere to Charity Mistaken The second relates to this Reply of mine And the third containes some Premonitions or Prescriptions in case D. Potter or any in his behalfe thinke fit to rejoyne 2. For the first point concerning D. Potters Answere I say in generall reserving particulars to their proper places that in his whole Booke he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question which was Whether both Catholiques and Protestants can be saved in their severall professions And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist proves in generall
thereof compared either with Charity Mistaken or D Potters Answere I desire you to consider well of what now I am about to say and then I hope you will see that I was cast upon a meere necessity of not being so short as otherwise might peradventure be desired Charity Mistaken is short I grant and yet very â—ull and large for as much as concerned his designe which you see was not to treat of particular Controversies in Religion no not so much as to debate whether or no the Roman Church be the only true Church of Christ which indeed would have required a larger Volume as I have understood there was one then comming forth if it had not bee prevented by the Treatise of Charity Mistaken which seemed to make the other intended worke a little lesse seasonable at that time But Charity Mistaken proves only in Generall out of some Vniversall Principles well backed and made good by choice solid authorities that of two disagreeing in points of Faith one only without repentance can be saved which ayme exacted no great bulk And as for D. Potters Answere even that also is not so short as it may seem For if his marginall notes printed in a small letter were transferred into the Text the Book would appear to be of some bulk though indeed it might have been very short if he had kept himselfe to the point treated by Charity Mistaken as shall be declared anon But contrarily because the question debated betwixt Charity Mistaken and D. Potter is a point of the highest consequence that can be imagined and in regard that there is not a more pernitious Heresy or rather indeed ground of Atheisme then a perswasion that men of different Religions may be saved if otherwise forsooth they lead a kind of civill and morall life I conceaved that my chief endeavour was not to be employed in answering D Potter but that it was necessary to handle the Question it selfe somewhat at large and not only to prove in generall that both Protestants and Catholikes cannot be saved but to shew also that Salvation cannot be hoped for out of the Catholique Roman Church and yet withall not to omit to answere all the particulars of D. Potters Book which may any way import To this end I thought it fit to divide my Reply into two Parts in the formet whereof the main question is handled by a continued discourse without stepping aside to confute the particulars of D. Potters Answere though yet so as that even in this first Part I omit not to answere such passages of his as I find directly in my way and naturally belong to the points whereof I treat and in the second Part I answere D. Potters Treanse Section by Section as they lye in order I heer therefore intreat the Reader that if heartily he desire satisfaction in this so important question he doe not content himselfe with that which I say to Doctor Potter in my second Part but that he take the First before him eyther all or at least so much as may serve most to his purpose of being satisfied in those doubts which presse him most For which purpose I have caused a Table of the Chapters of the first Part together with their Titles and Arguments to be prefixed before my Reply 7. This was then a chiefe reason why I could not be very short But yet there wanted not also divers other causes of the same effect For there are so severall kinds of Protestants through the difference of Tenets which they hold as that if a man convince but one kind of them the rest will conceive themselves to be as truly unsatisfied and even unspoken to as if nothing had been said therein at all As for example some hold a necessity of a perpetuall visible Church and some hold no such necessity Some of them hold it necessary to be able to prove it distinct from ours and others that their businesse is dispatched when they have proved ours to have been alwaies visible for then they will conceive that theirs hath been so the like may be truly said of very many other particulars Besides it is D. Potters fashion wherein as he is very far from being the first so I pray God he prove the last of that humour to touch in a word many triviall old objections which if they be not all answered it will and must serve the turne to make the more ignorant sort of men believe and brag as if some maine unanswerable matter had been subtily and purposely omitted and every body knowes that some objection may be very plausibly made in few words the cleere and solid answere whereof will require more leaves of paper theâ— one And in particular D. Potter doth couch his corruption of Authors within the compasse of so few lines and with so great confusednesse and fraud that it requires much time paines and paper to open them so distinctly as that they may appear to every mans eye It was also necessary to shew what D. Potter omits in Charity Mistaken and the importance of what is omitted and sometimes to set down the very words themselves that are omitted all which could not but adde to the quantity of my Reply And as for the quality thereof I desire thee good Reader to believe that whereas nothing is more necessary then books for answering of books yet I was so ill furnished in this kind that I was forced to omit the examination of divers Authors cited by D. Potter meerely upon necessity though I did very well perceive by most apparant circumstances that I must probably have been sure inough to find them plainly misalleadged and much wronged and for the few which are examined there hath not wanted some difficulties to doe it For the times are not for all men alike and D. Potter hath much advantage therein But truth is truth and will ever be able to justify it self in the midst of all difficulties which may occurre As for me when I alledge Protestant Writers as well domesticall as forraine I willingly and thankfully acknowledge my selfe obliged for divers of them to the author of the Book entituled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church who calls himselfe Iohn Brerely whose care exactnesse and fidelity is so extraordinary great as that he doth not only cite the Bookes but the Editions also with the place and time of their printing yea and often the very page and line where the words are to be had And if you happen not to finde what he cites yet suspend your judgment till you have read the corrections placed at the end of his book though it be also true that after all diligence and faithfulnesse on his behalfe it was not in his power to amend all the faults of the print in which prints we have difficulty enough for many evident reasons which must needs occur to any prudent man 8. And for asmuch as concernes the manner of my Reply I have procured
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
for Salvation if they deny it to us 17 Seaventhly whether any one Errour maintained against any one Truth though never so small in it selfe yet sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by almighty God doe not destroy the Nature and Vnity of Faith or at least is not a grievous offence excluding Salvation 18 Eightly if this be so how can Lutherans Calvinists Zuinglions and all the rest of disagreeing Protestants hope for salvation since it is manifest that some of them must needs erre against some such truth as is testified by almighty God either fundamentall or at least not fundamentall 19 Ninthly we constantly urge and require to haue a particular Catalogue of such points as he calls fundamentall A Catalogue I say in particular and not only some generall definition or description wherein Protestants may perhaps agree though wee see that they differ when they come to assigne what points in particular be fundamentall and yet upon such a particular Catalogue much depends as for example in particular Whether or no a man doe not erre in some point fundamentall or necessary to salvation and whether or no Lutherans Calvinists and the rest doe disagree in fundamentalls which if they doe the same Heaven cannot receiue them all 20 Tenthly and lastly I desire that in answering to these points â—he would let us knowe distinctly what is the doctrine of the Protestant English Church concerning them and what he utters only as his owne private opinion 21 These are the Questions which for the present I finde it fit and necessary for me to aske of D. Potter or any other who will defend his cause or impugne ours And it will be in vaine to speake vainely and to tell me that a Foole may aske mere questions in an houre then a wise man can answer in a yeare with such idle Proverbs as that For I aske but such questions as for which he giues occasion in his Book and where he declares not himselfe but after so ambiguous and confused a manner as that Truth it selfe can scarce tell how to convince him so but that with ignorant and ill-judging men he will seeme to haue somewhat left to say for himselfe though Papists as he calls them and Puritans should presse him contrary waies at the same time and these questions concerne things also of high importance as whereupon the knowledge of Gods Church and true Religion and consequently Saâ—â—ation of the soule depends And now because hee shall not taxe me with being like those men in the Gospell whom our blessed Lord and Saviour charged with laying heavy burdens upon other mens shoulders who yet would not touch them with their finger I oblige my selfe to answer upon any demand of his both to all these Questions if he finde that I haue not done it already and to any other concerning matter of faith that he shall aske And I will tell him very plainely what is Catholique doctrine and what is not that is what is defined or what is not defined and rests but in discussion among Divines 22 And it will be here expected that he performe these things as a man who professeth learning should doe not flying from questions which concerne things as they are considered in their owne nature to accidentall or rare circumstances of ignorance incapacity want of meanes to be instructed erroneous conscience and the like which being very various and different cannot bee well comprehended under any generall Rule But in delivering generall doctrines we must consider things as they be ex natura rei or per. se loquendo as Divines speak that is according to their natures if all circumstances concuâ—re proportionable thereunto As for example some may for a time haue invincible ignorance even of some fundamentall article of faith through want of capacity instruction or the like and so not offend either in such ignorance or errour and yet we must absolutely say that errour in any one fundamentall point is damnable because so it is if we consider things in themselues abstracting from accidentall circumstances in particular persons as contrarily if some man judge some act of vertue or some indifferent action to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed by reason of his erroneous conscience and yet we ought not to say absolutely that vertuous or indifferent actions are sinnes and in all sciences we must distinguish the generall Rules from their particular Exceptions And therefore when for example he answers to our demand whether he hold that Catholiques may be saved or whether their pretended errours be fundamentall and damnable he is not to change the state of the question and haue recourse to Ignorance and the like but to answer concerning the errours being considered what they are apt to be in themselues and as they are neither increased nor diminished by accidental circumstances 23 And the like I say of all the other points to which I once againe desire an answere without any of these or the like ambiguous termes in some sort in some sense in some degree which may be explicated afterward as strictly or largely as may best serue his turne but let him tell vs roundly and particularly in what sort in what sense in what degree he understands those the like obscure mincing phrases If he proceed solidly after this manner and not by way of meere words more like a Preacher to a vulgar Auditor then like a learned man with a pen in his hand thy patience shall be the lesse abused and truth will also receiue more right And since we haue already laid the grounds of the question much may be said hereafter in few words if as I said he keep close to the reall point of every difficulty without wandring into impertinent disputes multiplying vulgar and threed-bare objections and arguments or labouring to prove what no man denies or making a vaine oftentation by citing a number of Schoolemen which every â—uny brought up in Schooles is able to doe and if he cite his Authors with such sincerity as no time need be spent in opening his corruptions and finally if he set himselfe a worke with this consideration that we are to giue a most strict accompt to a most just and unpartiall Iudge of every period line and word that passeth under our pen. For if at the latter day we shall be arraigned for every idle word which is spoken so much more will that be done for every idle word which is written as the deliberation wherewith it passeth makes a man guilty of more malice and as the importance of the matter which is treated of in bookes concerning true faith and religion without which no Soule can be saved makes a mans Errours more materiall then they would be if question were but of toyes The Answere to the PREFACE TO the First and Second If beginings be ominous as they say they are D. Potter hath cause to look for great store of uningenuous dealing from you the very first words you
speak of him vz. That he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question being a most unjust and immodest imputation 2 For first the point in question was not that which you pretend Whether both Papists and Protestants can be saved in their severall Professions But Whether you may without uncharitablenesse affirme that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation And that this is the very question is most apparent and unquestionable both from the title of Charity Mistaken and from the Arguments of the three first Chapters of it and from the title of your own Reply And therefore if D. Potter had joyned issue with his Adversary only thus farre and not medling at all with Papists but leaving them to stand or fall to their own master had prou'd Protestants living and dying so capable of Salvation I cannot see how it could justly be charged upon him that he had not once truly and really fallen upon the point in Question Neither may it be said that your Question here and mine are in effect the same seeing it is very possible that the true Answere to the one might have been Affirmative and to the other Negative For there is no incongruity but it may be true That You and We cannot both be saved And yet as true That without uncharitablenesse you cannot pronounce us damned For all ungrounded and unwarrantable sentencing mento damnation is either in a propriety of speech uncharitable or else which for my purpose is all one it is that which Protestants mean when they say Papists for damning them are uncharitable And therefore though the Author of C. M. had prov'd as strongly as he hath done weakly that one Heaven could not receive Protestants and Papists both yet certainly it was very hastily and unwarrantably therefore uncharitably concluded that Protestants were the part that was to be excluded As though Iewes and Christians cannot both be saved yet a Iew cannot justly and therefore not charitably pronounce a Christian damned 3 But then secondly to shew your dealing with him very injurious I say he doth speak to this very Question very largely and very effectually as by confronting his worke and Charity Mist. together will presently appear Charity M. proves you say in generall That there is but one Church D. Potter tels him His labour is lost in proving the unity of the Catholique Church whereof there is no doubt or controversy herein I hope you will grant he answeres right to the purpose C. M. proves you say secondly That all Christians are obliged to harken to the Church D. Potter answeres It is true yet not absolutely in all things but only when she commands those things which God doth not countermand And this also I hope is to his purpose though not to yours C. M. proves you say thirdly That the Church must be ever visible and infallible For her Visibility D. Potter denyes it not and as for her Infallibility he grants it in Fundamentalls but not in Superstructures C. M. proves you say fourthly That to separate ones selfe from the Churches Communion is schisme D. Potter grants it with this exception unlesse there be necessary cause to doe so unlesse the conditions of her Communion be apparently unlawfull C. M. proves you say lastly That to dissent from her doctrine is heresy though it be in points never so few and never so small and therefore that the distinction of points fundamentall and unfundamentall as it is applyed by Protestants is wholy vaine This D. Potter denyes shewes the Reasons brought for it weak and unconcluding proves the contrary by reasons unanswerable and therefore that The distinction of points into fundamentall and not fundamentall as it is applied by Protestants is very good Vpon these grounds you say C. M. cleerely evinces That any least difference in faith cannot stand with salvation and therefore seeing Catholiques and Protestants disagree in very many points of faith they both cannot hope to be saved without Repentance you must mean without an explicit and particular repentance and dereliction of their errors for so C. M. hath declared himselfe p. 14. where he hath these words We may safely say that a man who lives in Protestancy and who is so farre from Repenting it as that he will not so much as acknowledge it to be a sinne though he be sufficiently enform'd thereof c. From whence it is evident that in his judgement there can be no repentance of an errour without acknowledging it to be a sinne And to this D. Potter justly opposes That both sides by the confession of both sides agree in more points then are simply and indispensably necessary to Salvation and differ only in such as are not precisely necessary That it is very possible a man may dye in errour and yet dye with Repentance as for all his sinnes of ignorance so in that number for the errours in which he dies with a repentance though not explicite and particular which is not simply required yet implicite and generall which is sufficient so that he cannot but hope considering the goodnesse of God that the truth 's retained on both sides especially those of the necessity of repentance from dead workes and faith in Iesus Christ if they be put in practise may be an antidote against the errors held on either side to such he meanes saies as being diligent in seeking truth and desirous to find it yet misse of it through humane frailty and dye in errour If you will but attentively consider compare the undertaking of C. M. and D. Potters performance in all these points I hope you will be so ingenuous as to acknowledge that you have injurd him much in imputing tergiversation to him and pretending that through his whole book he hath not once truly and really fallen upon the point in Question Neither may you or C. M. conclude him from hence as covertly you doe An enemy to soules by deceiving them with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation seeing the hope of salvation cannot be ungrounded which requires and supposes beliefe and practise of all things absolutely necessary unto salvation and repentance of those sinnes and errours which we fall into by humane frailty Nor a friend to indifferency in Religions seeing he gives them only hope of pardon of Errors who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities industrious to find the truth or at least truly repentant that they have not been so Which doctrine is very fit to excite men to a constant and impartiall search of truth and very farre from teaching them that it is indifferent what Religion they are of and without all controversy very honourable to the goodnesse of God with which how it can consist not to be satisfied with his servants true endeavours to know his will and doe it without full and exact performance I leave it to you and all good men to judge 4 As little Iustice me thinkes
you shew in quarrelling with him for descending to the particular disputes here mentioned by you For to say nothing that many of these Questions are immediatly and directly pertinent to the businesse in hand as the 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. and all of them fall in of themselves into the stream of his discourse and are not drawn in by him and besides are touched for the most part rather then handled to say nothing of all this you know right well if he conclude you erroneous in any one of all these be it but in the Communion in one kind or the Language of your service the infallibility of your Church is evidently overthrown And this being done I hope there will be no such necessity of hearkning to her in all things It will be very possible to seperate from her communion in some things without schisme and from her doctrine so farre as it is erroneous without heresy Then all that she proposes will not be eo ipso fundamentall because shee proposes it and so presently all Charity Mistaken will vanish into smoak and clouds and nothing 5 You say he was loath to affirme plainly that generally both Catholiques Protestants may be saved which yet is manifest he doth affirme plainly of Protestants throughout his book of erring Papists that have syncerely sought the Truth and failed of it and dye with a generall repentance p. 77. 78. And yet you deceive your selfe if you conceive he had any other necessity to doe so but only that he thought it true For we may and doe pretend that before Luther there were many true Churches besides the Roman which agreed not with her in particular The greek Church So that what you say is evidently true is indeed evidently false Besides if he had had any necessity to make use of you in this matter he needed not for this end to say that now in your Church Salvation may be had but onely that before Luthers time it might be Then when your meanes of knowing the Truth were not so great and when your ignorance might be more invincible and therefore more excusable So that you may see if you please it is not for ends but for the loue of truth that we are thus charitable to you 6 Neither is it materiall that these particulars he speakes against are not fundamentall errours for though they be not destructiue of salvation yet the convincing of them may be and is destructiue enough of his Adversaries assertion and if you be the man I take you for you will not deny they are so For certainly no Consequence can be more palpable then this The Church of Rome doth erre in this or that therefore it is not infallible And this perhaps you perceiu'd your selfe therefore demanded not Since they be not fundamentall what imports it whether we hold them or no simply But for as much as concernes our possibility to be saved As if we were not bound by the loue of God the loue of truth to be zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable though not simply necessary to salvation Or as if any good man could satisfie his conscience without being so affected and resolv'd Our Saviour himselfe having assur'd us That hee that shall breake one of his least Commandements some whereof you pretend are concerning veniall sinnes and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to salvation and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the kingdome of Heaven 7 But then it imports very much though not for the possibilitie that you may be saved yet for the probabilitie that you will be so because the holding of these errours though it did not merit might yet occasion damnation As the doctrine of Indulgences may take away the feare of Purgatory and the doctrine of Purgatorie the feare of Hell as you well knowe it does too frequently So that though a godly man might be saved with these errours yet by meanes of them many are made vicious and so damn'd By them I say though not for them No godly Lay-man who is verily perswaded that there is neither impietie nor superstition in the use of your Latine service shall be damn'd I hope for being present at it yet the want of that devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices understood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them may very probably hinder the salvation of many which otherwise might haue been saved Besides though the matter of an Errour may bee onely something profitable not necessary yet the neglect of it may be a damnable sinne As not to regard veniall sinnes is in the doctrine of your Schooles mortall Lastly as veniall sinnes you say dispose men to mortall so the erring from some profitable though lesser truth may dispose a man to errour in greater matters As for example The Beleife of the Popes infallibility is I hope not unpardonably damnable to every one that holds it yet if it be a falsehood as most certainely it is it puts a man into a very congruous disposition to beleiue Antichrist if he should chance to get into that See 8 To the Third In his distinctions of points fundamentall and not fundamentall he may seeme you say to haue touched the point but does not so indeed Because though he saies there are some points so fundamentall as that all are oblig'd to belieue them explicitely yet he tells you not whether a man may disbeleiue any other points of faith which are sufficiently presented to his understanding as Truths revealed by Almighty God Touching which matter of Sufficient Proposall I beseech you to come out of the Clouds and tell us roundly and plainely what you meane by Points of faith sufficiently propounded to a mans understanding as Truths revealed by God Perhaps you meane such as the person to whom they are propos'd understands sufficiently to be truths revealed by God But how then can he possibly choose but belieue them Or how is it not an apparent contradiction that a man should disbelieue what himselfe understands to be a Truth or any Christian what he understands or but belieues to be testified by God Dr Potter might well thinke it superfluous to tell you This is damnable because indeed it is impossible And yet one may very well think by your saying as you doe hereafter That the impietie of heresie consists in calling Gods truth in question that this should be your meaning Or doe you esteeme all those things sufficiently presented to his understanding as Divine truths which by you or any other man or any company of men whatsoever are declared to him to be so I hope you will not say so For this were to oblige a man to belieue all the Churches and all the men in the world whensoever they pretend to propose divine Revelations D. Potter I assure you from him would never haue told you this neither Or doe you meane by
and Communions such I mean who hold all those things that are simply necessary to Salvation may 〈◊〉 obtain pardon for the Errours wherein they dye ignorantly by a generall Repentance is so farre from being a ground of Atheisme that to say the contrary is to crosse in Diameter a main Article of our Creed and to overthrow the Gospell of Christ. 14 To the Seaventh and Eight To the two next Paragraphes I have but two words to say The one is that I know no Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to prove a Perpetuall Visible Church distinct from Yours Some perhaps undertake to doe so as a matter of curtesy but I believe you will be much to seeke for any one that holds it necessary For though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a Perpetuall Visible Church yet you yourselves doe not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Histories and Records alwaies extant of the Professors of it in all ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned us to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them 14 The other is That Breerelie's great exactnesse which you magnify so and amplify is no very certaine demonstration of his fidelity A Romance may be told with as much variety of circumstances as a true Story 16 To the Ninth and Tenth Your desires that I would in this rejoynder Avoid impertinencies Not impose doctrines upon you which you disclayme Set down the substance of your Reasons faithfully and entirely Not weary the reader with unnecessary quotations Object nothing to you which I can answere my selfe or which may be return'd upon my selfe and lastly which you repeat again in the end of your Preface speak as cleerly and distinctly and univocally as possibly I can are all very reasonable and shall be by me most punctually and fully satisfied Only I have Reason to complain that you give us rules only and not good example in keeping them For in some of these things I shall have frequent occasion to shew that Medice curateipsum may very justly be said unto you especially for objecting what might very easily have been answered by you and may be very justly returned upon you 17 To your ensuing demands though some of them be very captious and ensnaring yet I will give you as clear and plain and ingenuous Answers as possibly I can 18 To the Eleventh To the first then about the Perpetuity of the visible Church my Answer is That I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascention hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on earth I mean a company of men that professed at least so much truth as was absolutely necessary for their Salvation And I believe that there will be somewhere or other such a Church to the Worlds end But the contrary doctrine I doe at no hand believe to be a damnable heresy 19 To the twelfth To the second what Visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman I answere that before Luther there were many Visible Churches in many things disagreeing from the Roman But not that the whole Catholique Church disagreed from her because she her selfe was a Part of the Whole though much corrupted And to undertake to name a Catholique Church disagreeing from her is to make her no Part of it which we doe not nor need not pretend And for men agreeing with Protestants in all points wee will then produce them when you shall either prove it necessary to be done which you know we absolutely deny or when you shall produce a perpetuall succession of Professors which in all points have agreed with you and disagreed from you in nothing But this my promise to deal plainly with you I conceive so intended it to be very like his who undertook to drink up the Sea upon condition that he to whom the promise was made should first stop the Rivers from runing in For this unreasonable request which you make to us is to your selves so impossible that in the very next Age after the Apostles you will never be able to name a man whom you can prove to have agreed with you in all things nay if you speak of such whose Works are extant and unquestioned whom we cannot prove to have disagreed from you in many things Which I am so certain of that I will venture my credit and my life upon it 20 To the Thirteenth To the third Whether seeing there cannot be assign'd any visible true Church distinct from the Roman it followes not that she err'd not fundamentally I say in our sence of the word Fundamentall it does follow For if it be true that there was then no Church distinct from the Roman then it must be either because there was no Church at all which we deny Or because the Roman Church was the whole Church which we also deny or because she was a Part of the Whole which we grant And if she were a true part of the Church then she retained those truths which were simply necessary to Salvation and held no errours which were inevitably and unpardonably destructive of it For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or any Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sence therefore of the word Fundamentall I hope shee erred not fundamentally but in your sence of the word I fear she did That is she held something to be Divine Revelation which was not something not to be which was 21 To the fourteenth To the fourth How it could be damnable to maintain her errors if they were not fundamentall I answere 1. Though it were not damnable yet if it were a fault it was not to be done For a veniall sinne with you is not damnable yet you say it is not to be committed for the procuring any good Non est faciendum malum vel minimum ut eveniat bonum vel maximum 2. It is damnable to mantaine an error against conscience though the errour in it selfe and to him that believes it be not damnable Nay the profession not only of an errour but even of a truth if not believ'd when you think on it again I believe you will confesse to be a mortall sinne unlesse you will say Hypocrisie and Simulation in Religion is not so 3. Though we say the errors of the Roman Church were not destructive of Salvation but pardonable even to them that dyed in them upon a generall repentance yet we deny not but in themselves they were damnable Nay the very saying they were pardonable implies they needed pardon and therefore in themselves were damnable damnable meritoriously though not effectually As a poyson may be deadly in it selfe and yet not kill him that together with the poyson takes an antidote or as felony may deserve death and yet not bring it on him that obtaines the Kings pardon 22 To the fifteenth To the fift How they can be excus'd from Schisme who forsook her Communion upon pretence of
faith necessary to be explicitely believed is not pertinent to free from sinne the voluntary deniall of any other point knowen to be defined by Gods Church And this were sufficient to overthrow all that D. Potter alleadgeth concerning the Creed though yet by way of Supererogation we will prove that there are divers important matters of Faith which are not mentioned at all in the Creed 14 From the aforesaid maine principle that God hath alwaies had and alwaies will have on earth a Church Visible within whose Communion Salvation must be hoped and infallible whose definitions we ought to believe we will prove that Luther Calvin and all other who continue the division in Communion or Faith from that Visible Church which at and before Luther's appearance was spread over the world cannot be excused from Schisme and Heresy although they opposed her faith but in one only point whereas it is manifest they dissent from her in many and weighty matters concerning as well beliefe as practise 15 To these reasons drawne from the vertue of Faith we will adde one other taken from Charitas propria the Vertue of Charity as it obligeth us not to expose our soule to hazard of perdition when we can put ourselves in a way much more secure as we will prove that of the Roman Catholiques to be 16 We are then to prove these points First that the infallible means to determine controversies in matters of faith is the visible Church of Christ. Secondly that the distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall maketh nothing to our present Question Thirdly that to say the Creed containes all fundamentall points of faith is neither pertinent nor true Fourthly that both Luther and all they who after him persist in division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church cannot be excused from Schisme Fiftly nor from Heresy Sixtly and lastly that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants be in state of sinne as long as they remaine divided from the Roman Church And these six points shall be severall Arguments for so many ensuing Chapters 17 Only I will here observe that it seemeth very strange that Protestants should charge us so deeply with Want of Charity for only teaching that both they and we cannot be saved seeing themselves must affirme the like of whosoever opposeth any least point delivered in Scripture which they hold to be the sole Rule of Faith Out of which ground they must be enforced to let all our former Inferences passe for good For is it not a grievous sinne to deny any one truth contained in holy Writ Is there in such deniall any distinction betwixt points fundamentall and not fundamentall sufficient to excuse from heresy Is it not impertinent to alleadge the Creed containing all fundamentall points of faith as if believing it alone we were at liberty to deny all other points of Scripture In a word According to Protestants Oppose not Scripture there is no Errour against faith Oppose it in any least point the error if Scripture be sufficiently proposed which proposition is also required before a man can be obliged to believe even fundamentall points must be damnable What is this but to say with us Of persons contrary in whatsoever point of beliefe one party only can be saved And D. Potter must not take it ill if Catholiques believe they may be saved in that Religion for which they suffer And if by occasion of this doctrine men will still be charging us with Want of Charity and be resolved to take scandall where none is given we must comfort our selves with that grave and true saying of S. Gregory If scandall be taken from declaring a truth it is better to permit scandall then forsake the truth But the solid grounds of our Assertion and the sincerity of our intention in uttering what wee think yield us confidence that all will hold for most reasonable the saying of Pope Gelasius to Anastasius the Emperour Farre â—e it from the Roman Emperour that he should hold it for a wrong to have truth declared to him Let us therefore begin with that Point which is the first that can be controverted betwixt Protestants and us for as much as concernes the present Question and is contained in the Argument of the next ensuing Chapter THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPTER Shewing that the Adversary grants the Former Question and proposeth a New one And that there is no reason why among men of different opinions and Communions one Side only can be sav'd 1. TO the first § Your first onset is very violent D. Potter is charg'd with malice and indiscretion for being uncharitable to you while he is accusing you of uncharitablenesse Verily a great fault and folly if the accusation be just if unjust a great calumnie Let us see then how you make good your charge The effect of your discourse if I mistake not is this D. Potter chargeth the Roman Church with many and great errours judgeth reconciliation betweene her Doctrine and ours impossible and that for them who are convicted in Conscience of her Errors not to forsake her in them or to be reconcil'd unto her is damnable Therefore if Roman Catholiques be convicted in conscience of the Errours of Protestants they may and must judge a reconciliation with them damnable consequently to judge so is no more uncharitable in theÌ„ then it is in the Doctor to judge as he does All this I grant nor would any Protestant accuse you of want of Charity if you went no further if you judg'd the Religion of Protestants damnable to them only who professe it being convicted in conscience that it is erroneous For if a man judge some act of vertue to be a sinne in him it is a sinne indeed So you have taught us p. 19. So if you be convinc'd or rather to speake properly perswaded in conscience that our Religion is erroneous the profession of it though in it selfe most true to you would be damnable This therefore I subscribe very willingly and withall that if you said no more D. Potter and my selfe should not be to Papists only but even to Protestants as uncharitable as you are For I shall alwaies professe and glory in this uncharitablenesse of judging hypocrisie a damnable sinne Let Hypocrites then and Dissemblers on both sides passe It is not towards them but good Christians not to Protestant Professors but Believers that we require your Charity What think you of those that believe so verily the truth of our Religion that they are resolv'd to die in it and if occasion were to die for it What Charity have you for them What think yee of those that in the dayes of our Fathers laid down their lives for it are you content that they shall be saved or doe you hope they may be so Will you grant that notwithstanding their Errours there is good hope they might die with repentance and if they did so certainly they are
connection between these Propositions I belieue will be able to finde good coherence between the deafe Plaintiffe's accusation in the Greek Epigram and the deafe Defendants Answer and the deafe Iudges sentence And to contriue them all into a formall Categoricall Syllogisme 11 Indeed if the matter in agitation were plainely decided by this infallible meanes of deciding Controversies and the Parties in variance knew it to be so and yet would stand out in their dissention this were in one of them direct opposition to the Testimonie of God and undoubtedly a damnable sinne But if you take the liberty to suppose what you please you may very easily conclude what you list For who is so foolish as to grant you these unreasonable Postulates that every emergent Controversie of Faith is plainly decided by the means of decision which God hath appointed and that of the Parties lititigant one is alwaies such a convicted Recusant as you pretend Certainly if you say so having no better warrant then you haue or can haue for it this is more proper and formall uncharitablenesse then ever was charg'd upon you Me thinks with much more Reason and much more Charity you might suppose that many of these Controversies which are now disputed among Christians all which professe themselues lovers of Christ and truly desirous to knowe his will and doe it are either not decidable by that meanes which God hath provided and so not necessary to be decided Or if they be yet not so plainly and evidently as to oblige all men to hold one way or Lastly if decidable and evidently decided yet you may hope that the erring part by reason of some veile before his eyes some excusable ignorance or unavoidable preiudice does not see the Question to be decided against him and so opposes not that which He doth know to be the word of God but only that which You know to be so and which hee might know were he void of prejudice Which is a fault I confesse but a fault which is incident even to good and honest men very often and not of such a gigantique disposition as you make it to fly directly upon God Almighty and to giue him the lye to his face 12 Ad § 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. In all this long discourse you only tell us what you will doe but doe nothing Many Positions there are but proofes of them you offer none but reserue them to the Chapters following and there in their proper places they shall be examined The summe of all your Assumpts collected by your selfe § 16 is this That the infallible meanes of determining Controversies is the visible Church That he distinction of points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall maketh nothing to the present Question That to say the Creed containeth all Fundamentals is neither pertinent nor true That whosoever persist in Division from the Communion and Faith of the Roman Church are guilty of Schisme and Heresie That in regard of the Precept of Charity towards ones selfe Protestants are in state of sinne while they remaine divided from the Romane Church To all these Assertions I will content my selfe for the present to oppose this one That not one of them all is true Only I may not omit to tell you that if the first of them were as true as the Pope himselfe desires it should be yet the corollary which you deduce from it would be utterly inconsequent That whosoever denies any point propos'd by the Church is iniurious to Gods Divine Maiestie as if He could deceiue or be deceived For though your Church were indeed as Infallible a Propounder of Divine Truths as it pretends to be yet if it appear'd not to me to be so I might very well belieue God most true your Church most false As though the Gospell of S. Mathew be the word of God yet if I neither knew it to be so nor believed it I might belieue in God and yet think that Gospell a Fable Hereafter therefore I must entreat you to remember that our being guilty of this impiety depends not only upon your being but upon our knowing that you are so Neither must you argue thus The Church of Rome is the Infallible Propounder of Divine Verities therefore he that opposes Her calls Gods Truth in Question But thus rather The Church of Rome is so and Protestants know it to be so therefore in opposing her they impute to God that either he deceiues them or is deceived himselfe For as I may deny something which you upō your knowledge have affirm'd yet never disparage your honesty if I never knew that you affirm'd it So I may bee undoubtedly certaine of Gods Omniscience and Veracitie yet doubt of something which he hath revealed provided I doe not knowe nor belieue that he hath revealed it So that though your Church be the appointed witnesse of Gods Revelations yet untill you know that we know she is so you cannot without foule calumnie impute to us That we charge God blasphemously with deceiving or being deceived You will say perhaps That this is directly consequent from our Doctrine That the Church may erre which is directed by God in all her proposalls True if we knew it to be directed by him otherwise not much lesse if we belieue and know the contrary But then if it were consequent from our opinion haue you so little Charitie as to say that men are iustly chargeable with all the consequences of their Opinions Such Consequences I mean as they doe not owne but disclaim and if there were a necessity of doing either would much rather forsake their Opinion then imbrace these Consequences What opinion is there that draws after it such a train of portentous blasphemies as that of the Dominicans by the judgement of the best Writers of your own Order And will you say now that the Dominicans are justly chargable with all these blasphemies If not seeing our case take it at the worst is but the same why should not your judgement of us be the same I appeale to all those Protestants that haue gone over to your side whether when they were most averse from it they did ever deny or doubt of Gods omniscience or Veracitie whether they did ever belieue or were taught that God did deceiue them or was deceiued himselfe Nay I provoke to you your selfe desire you to deale truly to tell Us whether you doe in your heart belieue that we doe indeed not belieue the eternall Veracitie of the eternall Verity And if you judge so strangely of us having no better ground for it then you haue or can haue wee shall not need any farther proofe of your uncharitablenes towards us this being the extremity of true uncharitablenesse If not then I hope having no other ground but this which sure is none at all to pronounce us damnable Heretiques you will cease to doe so and hereafter as if your ground be true you may doe with more truth
Ancient and Primitive Church Which though it be but a highly probable inducement and no demonstrative enforcement yet me thinks you should not denie but it may be a sufficient ground of faith Whose Faith even of the Foundation of all your Faith your Churches Authority is built lastly and wholly upon Prudentiall Motives 36 But by this Rule the whole booke of Esther must quit the Canon because it was excluded by some in the Church by Melito Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen Then for ought I know he that should thinke he had reason to exclude it now might be still in the Church as well as Melito Athanasius Nazianzen were And while you thus inveigh against Luther and charge him with Luciferian heresies for doing that which you in this very place confesse that Saints in Heaven before him have done are you not partiall and a Iudge of evill thoughts 37 Luther's censures of Ecclesiastes Iob and the Prophets though you make such tragedies with them I see none of them but is capable of a tolerable construction and far from having in them any fundamentall heresie He that condemnes him for saying the booke of Ecclesiastes is not full That it hath many abrupt things condemnes him for ought I can see for speaking truth And the rest of the censure is but a bold and blunt expression of the same thing The booke of Iob may be a true History and yet as many true stories are and haue been an Argument of a Fable to set before us an example of Patience And though the books of the Prophets were not written by themselves but by their Disciples yet it does not follow that they were written casually Though I hope you will not damne all for Heretikes that say some books of Scripture were written casually Neither is there any reason they should the sooner be call'd in question for being written by their Disciples seeing being so written they had attestation from themselues Was the Prophesie of Ieremie the lesse Canonicall for being written by Baruch Or because S. Peter the Master dictated the Gospell and S. Marke the Scholler writ it is it the more likely to be called in Question 38 But leaving Luther you returne to our English Canon of Scripture And tell us that in the new testament by the above mentioned rule of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church divers books must be canoniz'd Not so For I may believe even those questioned bookes to have been written by the Apostles and to be Canonicall but I cannot in reason believe this of them so undoubtedly as of those books which were never questioned At least I have no warrant to damne any man that shall doubt of them or deny them now having the example of Saints in Heaven either to justify or excuse such their doubting or deniall 39 You observe in the next place that our sixt Article specifying by name all the bookes of the Old Tstament shâ—ffles over these of the New with this generality All the books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we doe receive and account them Canonicall And in this you phansy to your selfe a mystery of iniquity But if this be all the shuffling that the Church of England is guilty of I believe the Church as well as the King may give for her Motto Honi soit qui mal â— pense For all the Bibles which since the composing of the Articles have been used and allowed by the Church of England doe testify and even proclaime to the World that by CoÌ„monly received they meant received by the Church of Rome and other Churches before the Reformation I pray take the paines to look in them and there you shall finde the bookes which the Church of England counts Apocryphall marked out and severed from the rest with this title in the begining The bookes called Apocrypha and with this close or seal in the end The end of the Apocrypha And having told you by name and in particular what bookes only shee esteemes Apocryphall I hope you will not put her to the trouble of telling you that the rest are in her judgement Canonicall 40 But if by Commonly received shee meant by the Church of Rome Then by the same reason must she receive divers books of the old Testament which she reiects 41 Certainly a very good consequence The Church of England receives the Bookes of the New Testament which the Church of Rome receives Therefore she must receive the bookes of the old Testament which she receives As if you should say If you will doe as we in one thing you must in all things If you will pray to God with us ye must pray to Saints with us If you hold with us when we have reason on our side you must doe so when we have no reason 42 The discourse following is but a vaine declamation No man thinks that this Controversie is to be tryed by most voices but by the Iudgement and Testimony of the ancient Fathers and Churches 43 But with what Coherence can we say in the former part of the Article That by Scripture we mean those Bookes that were never doubted of and in the latter say We receive all the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received whereas of them many were doubted I answere When they say of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church They mean not those only of whose Authority there was simply no doubt at all by any man in the Church But such as were not at any time doubted of by the whole Church or by all Churches but had attestation though not universall yet at least sufficient to make considering men receive them for Canonicall In which number they may well reckon those Epistles which were sometimes doubted of by some yet whose number and authority was not so great as to prevaile against the contrary suffrages 44 But if to be commonly received passefor a good rule to know the Canon of the new Testament by why not of the Old You conclude many times very well but still when you doe so it is out of principles which no man grants For who ever told you that to be commonly received is a good Rule to know the Canon of the New Testament by Have you been train'd up in Schooles of subtilty and cannot you see a great difference between these two We receive the bookes of the new Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or Reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The bookes of the New Testament we receive for Canonicall as they are received by the Church of England 45 You demand upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against
things Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasius and S. Austine in this sense which is your own and they will not presse us any thing at all We will say with Athanasius That only foure Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon haue so determined 54 We will subscribe to S. Austin and say That we also would not belieue the Gospell unlesse the Authority of the Catholique Church did moue us meaning by the Church the Church of all Ages and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himselfe and his Apostles Neither would Zwinglius haue needed to cry out upon this saying had he conceived as you now doe that by the Catholique Church the Church of all Ages since Christ was to be understood As for the Councell of Carthage it may speak not of such Books only as were certainly Canonicall and for the regulating of Faith but also of those which were onely profitable and lawfull to be read in the Church Which in England is a very slender Argument that the book is Canonicall where every body knowes that Apocryphall books are read as well as Canonicall But howsoever if you understand by Fathers not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospell but the succession of them from the Apostles they are right in the Thesis that whatsoever is received from these Fathers as Canonicall is to be so esteem'd Though in the application of it to this or that particular book they may happily erre and think that Book received as Canonicall which was only received as Profitable to be read and think that Book received alwaies and by all which was rejected by some and doubted of by many 55 But we cannot be certain in what language the Scriptures remaine uncorrupted Not so certain I grant as of that which wee can demonstrate But certain enough morally certain as certain as the nature of the thing will beare So certain we may be and God requires no more We may be as certain as S. Austin was who in his second book of Baptisme against the Donatists c. 3. plainly implies the Scripture might possibly be corrupted He meanes sure in matters of little moment such as concerne not the Covenant between God and Man But thus he saith The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist. cleerly intimates That in his judgement the only preservatiue of the Scriptures integritie was the translating it into so many Languages and the generall and perpetuall use and reading of it in the Church for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kinde but the Canonicall Scripture being by this meanes guarded with universall care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts And this assurance of the Scripture's incorruption is common to us with him we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was that I hope was certain enough Yet if this does not satisfie you I say farther We are as certain hereof as your own Pope Sixtus Quintus was He in his Preface to his Bible tells us That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text it was perspicuously manifest to all men that there was no Argument more â—â—rme and certain to be relied upon then the Faith of Ancient Books Now this ground wee haue to build upon as well as He had and therefore our certainty is as great and stands upon as certain ground as his did 56 This is not all I haue to say in this matter For I will adde moreover that we are as certaine in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted as any man in your Church was untill Clement the 8th set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar translation For you doe not nor cannot without extreme impudence deny that untill then there was great variety of Copies currant in divers parts of your Church and those very frequent in various lections all which Copies might possibly be false in some things but more then one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things Neither were it lesse impudence to pretend that any man in your Church could untill Clement's time haue any certainty what that one true Copie and reading was if there were any one perfectly true Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible might after the Edition of that very likely think them selues cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation without being beholding to Clement but how fowly they were abused and deceived that thought so the Edition of Clemens differing from that of Sixtus in a great multitude of places doth sufficiently demonstrate 57 This certainty therefore in what language the Scripture remaines uncorrupted is it necessary to haue it or is it not If it be not I hope we may doe well enough without it If it be necessary what became of your Church for 1500 yeares together All which time you must confesse she had no such certainty no one man being able truly and upon good ground to say This or that Copy of the Bible is pure and perfect and uncorrupted in all things And now at this present though some of you are growne to a higher degree of Presumption in this point yet are you as farre as ever from any true and reall and rationall assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentique Translation which I suppose my selfe to haue prou'd unanswerably in divers places 58 In the sixteenth Division It is objected to Protestants in a long discourse transcrib'd out of the Protestants Apologie That their translations of the Scripture are very different and by each other mutually condemned Luthers Translation by Zwinglius and others That of the Zwinglians by Luther The Translation of Oecolampadius by the Divines of Basill that of Castalio by Beza That of Beza by Castalio That of Calvin by Carolus Molinaeus That of Geneva by M. Parks King Iames. And lastly one of our Translations by the Puritans 59 All which might haue been as justly objected against that great variety of Translations extant in the Primitive Church mâ—de use of by the Fathers and Doctors of it For which I desire not that my word but S. Austin's may be taken They which haue translated the Scriptures out of the Hebrew into Greek may be numbred but the Latine Interpreters are innumerable For whensoever any one in the first times of Christianity met with a Greek Bible and seem'd to himselfe to haue some ability in both Languages he presently ventur'd upon an Interpretation So He in his second book of Christian doctrine Cap. 11. Of all these that which was called the Italian Translation was esteemed best so we may learne from the same S. Austin in the 15. Chap. of the same book Amongst all these Interpretations saith he let the Italian be preferr'd for it keeps closer to the Letter and is perspicuous in the sense Yet so farre was the Church of that time
unlikely but some will be out of order and yet if any one be so the whole fabrick of necessity falls to the ground And he that shall put together and maturely consider all the possible waies of lapsing and nullifying a Priesthood in the Church of Rome I believe will be very inclinable to think that it is an hundred to one that amongst a hundred seeming Priests there is not one true one Nay that it is not a thing very improbable that amongst those many millions which make up the Romish Hierarchy there are not twenty true But be the truth in this what it will be once this is certain that They which make mens salvation as you doe depend upon Priestly Absolution and this again as you doe upon the Truth and reality of the Priesthood that gives it and this lastly upon a great multitude of apparent uncertainties are not the fittest men in the world to object to others as a horrible crime That they make mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain foundations And let this be the first retortion of your Argument 68 But suppose this difficulty assoyled and that an Angell from Heaven should ascertain you for other assurances you can have none that the person you make use of is a true Priest and a competent Minister of the Sacrament of Pennance yet still the doubt will remain whether he will doe you that good which he can doe whether he will pronounce the absolving words with intent to absolve you For perhaps he may bear you some secret malice and project to himselfe your damnation for a compleat Italian revenge Perhaps as the tale is of a Priest that was lately burnt in France he may upon some conditions have compacted with the Divell to give no Sacraments with Intention Lastly he may be for ought you can possibly know a secret Iew or Moore or Anti-Trinitarian or perhaps such a one as is so farre from intending your forgivenesse of sinnes and salvation by this Sacrament that in his heart he laughes at all these things and thinkes Sinne nothing and Salvation a word All these doubts you must have cleerely resolved which can hardly be done but by another Revelatiō before you can upon good grounds assure your selfe that your true Priest gives you true and effectuall absolution So that when you have done as much as God requires for your Salvation yet can you by no means be secure but that you may have the ill luck to be damn'd which is to make Salvation a matter of chaunce and not of choice and which a man may faile of not only by an ill life but by ill fortune Verily a most comfortable Doctrine for a considering man lying upon death bed who either feeles or feares that his repentance is but attritiō only and not contrition and consequently believes that if he be not absolved really by a true Priest he cannot possibly escape damnation Such a man for his comfort you tell first you that will have mens salvation depend upon no uncertainties that though he verily believe that his sorrow for sinnes is a true sorrow and his purpose of amendment a true purpose yet he may deceive himselfe perhaps it is not and if it be not he must be damned Yet you bid him hope well But Spes est rei incertae nomen You tell him secondly that though the party he confesses to seem to be a true Priest yet for ought he knowes or for ought himselfe knowes by reason of some secret undiscernable invalidity in his Baptisme or Ordination he may be none and if he be none he can doe nothing This is a hard saying but this is not the worst You tell him thirdly that he may be in such a state that he cannot or if he can that he will not give the Sacrament with due Intention and if he does not all 's in vaine Put case a man by these considerations should be cast into some agonies what advise what comfort would you give him Verily I know not what you could say to him but this that first for the Qualification required on his part he might know that he desired to have true sorrow and that that is sufficient But then if he should aske you why he might not know his sorrow to be a true sorrow as well as his desire to be sorrowfull to be a true desire I believe you would be put to silence Then secondly to quiet his feares concerning the Priest and his intention you should tell him by my advice that Gods goodnesse which will not suffer him to damne men for not doing better then their best will supply all such defects as to humane endeavours were unavoidable And therefore though his Priest were indeed no Priest yet to him he should be as if he were one and if he gave Absolution without Intention yet in doing so he should hurt himselfe only and not his penitent This were some comfort indeed and this were to settle mens salvation upon reasonable certain grounds But this I fear you will never say for this were to reverse many Doctrines established by your Church and besides to degrade your Priesthood from a great part of their honour by lessening the strict necessity of the Laities dependance upon them For it were to say that the Priests Intention is not necessary to the obtaining of absolution which is to say that it is not in the Parsons power to damne whom he will in his Parish because by this rule God should supply the defect which his malice had caused And besides it were to say that Infants dying without Baptisme might be saved God supplying the want of baptisme which to them is unavoidable But beyond all this it were to put into my mouth a full and satisfying answere to your Argument which I am now returning so that in answering my objection you should answer your own For then I should tell you that it were altogether as abhorrent from the goodnesse of God and as repugnant to it to suffer an ignorant Lay-mans soule to perish meerely for being misled by an undiscernable false Translation which yet was commended to him by the Church which being of necessity to credit some in this matter he had reason to rely upon either above all other or as much as any other as it is to damne a penitent sinner for a secret defect in that desired Absolution which his Ghostly Father perhaps was an Atheist and could not give him o◠was a villain and would not This answere therefore which alone would serve to comfort your penitent in his perplexities and to assure him that he cannot faile of Salvation if he will not for feare of inconveniences you must forbeare And seeing you must I hope you will come down from the Pulpit and preach no more against others for making mens Salvation depend upon fallible and uncertain grounds least by judging others you make your selves and your own Church inexcusable who are strongly guilty of this fault
for the Authority which you would have them follow you will let them see reason why they should follow it And is not this to goe a little about to leave reason for a short turne and then to come to it again and to doe that which you condemne in others It being indeed a plain impossibility for any man to submit his reason but to reason for he that does it to Authority must of necessity think himselfe to have greater reason to believe that Authority Therefore the confession cited by Brerely you need not think to have been extorted from Luther and the rest It came very freely from them and what they say you practise as much as they 115 And whereas you say that a Protestant admits of Fathers Councells Church as farre as they agree with Scripture which upon the matter is himselfe I say you admit neither of them nor the Scripture it selfe but only so farre as it agrees with your Church and your Church you admit because you think you have reason to doe so so that by you as well as by Protestants all is finally resolved into your own reason 116 Nor doe Heretiques only but Romish Catholiques also set up as many judges as there are men and women in the Christian world For doe not your men and women judge your Religion to be true before they believe it as well as the men and women of other Religions Oh but you say They receive it not because they think it agreeable to Scripture but because the Church tells them so But then I hope they believe the Church because their own reason tells them they are to doe so So that the difference between a Papist and a Protestant is this not that the one judges and the other does not judge but that the one judges his guide to be infallible the other his way to be manifest This same pernitious Doctrine is taught by Brentius Zanchius Cartwright and others It is so in very deed But it is taught also by some others whom you little think of It is taught by S. Paul where he saies Try all things hold fast that which is good It is taught by S. Iohn in these words Belieue not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no. It is taught by S. Peter in these Bee yee ready to render a reason of the hope that is in you Lastly this very pernitious Doctrine is taught by our Saviour in these words If the blinde lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch And why of your selues iudge you not what is right All which speeches if they doe not advise men to make use of their Reason for the choice of their Religion I must confesse my selfe to understand nothing Lastly not to bee infinite it is taught by M. Knot himselfe not in one page only or chapter of his Book but all his Book over the very writing and publishing whereof supposeth this for certaine that the readers are to be Iudges whether his Reasons which he brings be strong and convincing of which sort wee haue hetherto met with none or else captious or impertinences as indifferent men shall as I suppose haue cause to judge them 117 But you demand What good Statesmen would they be who should ideate or fancy such a Commonwealth as these men haue framed to themselues a Church Truly if this be all the fault they haue that they say Every man is to use his own iudgement in the choice of his Religion and not to belieue this or that sense of Scripture upon the bare Authority of any Learned man or men when he conceiues he has reasons to the contrary which are of more weight then their Authority I know no reason but notwithstanding all this they might be as good Statesmen as any of the Society But what has this to doe with Common-wealths where men are bound only to externall obedience unto the Laws and judgements of Courts but not to an internall approbation of them no nor to conceale their Iudgment of them if they disapprove them As if I conceiued I had reason to mislike the law of punishing simple theft with death as St Thomas Moore did I might professe lawfully my judgement and represent my Reasons to the King or Common-wealth in a Parliament as S â— Thomas Moore did without committing any fault or fearing any punishment 118 To the place of S. Austin wherewith this Paragraph is concluded I shall need giue no other Reply but onely to desire you to speak like an honest man and to say whether it be all one for a man to allow and disallow in every Scripture what he pleases which is either to dash out of Scripture such Texts or such Chapters because they crosse his opinionâ— or to say which is worse Though they be Scripture they are not true Whether I say for a man thus to allow and disallow in Scripture what he pleases be all one and no greater fault then to allow that sense of Scripture which he conceiues to be true and genuine and deduc'd out of the words and to disallow the contrary For Gods sake Sr tell me plainly In those Texts of Scripture which you alleage for the infallibility of your Church doe not you allow what sensâ— you think true and disallow the contrary And doe you not this by the direction of your private reason If you doe why doe you condemne it in others If you doe not I pray you tell me what direction you follow or whether you follow none at all If none at all this is like drawing Lots or throwing the Dice for the choice of a Religion If any other I beseech you tell me what it is Perhaps you will say the Churches Authority and that will be to dance finely in a round thus To belieue the Churches Infallible Authority because the Scriptures avouch it to belieue that Scriptures say and mean so because they are so expounded by the Church Is not this for a Father to beget his Sonne and the Sonne to beget his Father For a foundation to support the house and the house to support the foundation Would not Campian haue cryed out at it Ecce quos gyros quos Maeandros And to what end was this going about when you might as well at first haue concluded the Church infallible because she saies so as thus to put in Scripture for a meere stale and to say the Church is infallible because the Scripture saies so and the Scripture meanes so because the Church saies so which is infallible Is it not most evident therefore to every intelligent man that you are enforced of necessity to doe that your selfe which so tragically you declaime against in others The Church you say is infallible I am very doubtfull of it How shall I know it The Scripture you say affirmes it as in the 59. of Esay My spirit that is in thee c. Well I confesse I finde there these words but I am still
Archbishops of every Province should be so then that the Patriarchs only should be so Another That it would be yet more usefull if all the Bishops of every Diocesse were so Another that it would be yet more available that all the Parsons of every Parish should be so Another that it would be yet more excellent if all the Fathers of Families were so And lastly another that it were much more to be desired that every Man and every Woman were so just as much as the prevention of Controversies is better then the decision of them and the prevention of Heresies better then the condemnation of them and upon this ground conclude by your own very coÌ„sequence That not only a generall Councell nor only the Pope but all the Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops Pastors Fathers nay all the men in the World are infallible If you say now as I am sure you will that this conclusion is most grosse and absurd against sense and experience then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows viz. that That course of dealing with men seems alwaies more fit to Divine Providence which seemes most 〈◊〉 to humane reason 129 And so likewise That there should men succeed the Apostles which could shew theâ—selues to be their successours by doing of Miracles by speaking all kinde of languages by delivering men to Satan as S. Paul did Hymenaeus and the incestuous Corinthian it is manifest in humane reason it were incomparably more fit and usefull for the decision of Controversies then that the successour of the Apostles should haue none of these gifts and for want of the signes of Apostleship be justly questionable whether he be his successour or no and will you now conclude That the Popes haue the gift of doing Miracles as well as the Apostles had 130 It were in all reason very usefull and requisite that the Pope should by the assistance of Gods Spirit be freed from the vices passions of men lest otherwise the Authority given him for the good of the Church he might imploy as divers Popes you well know haue done to the disturbance and oppression and mischiefe of it And will you conclude from henâ—e That Popes are not subject to the sins and passions of other men That there never haue been ambitious covetous lustfull tyrannous Popes 131 Who sees not that for mens direction it were much morâ— beneficiall for the Church that Infallibility should be setled in the Popes Person then in a generall Councell That so the meanes of deciding Controversies might be speedy easy and perpetuall whereas that of generall Councells is not so And will you hence inferre that not the Church Representative but the Pope is indeed the infallible Iudge of Controversies certainly if you should the Sorbon Doctors would not think this a good conclusion 132 It had been very commodious one would think that seeing either Gods pleasure was the Scripture should be translated or else in his Providence he knew it would be so that he had appointed some men for this businesse and by his Spirit assisted them in it that so we might have Translations as Authenticall as the Originall yet you see God did not think fit to doe so 133 It had been very commodious one would think that the Scripture should have been at least for all things necessary a Rule plain and perfect And yet you say it is both imperfect and obscure even in things necessary 134 It had been most requisite one would think that the Copies of the Bibles should have been preserved free from variety of readings which makes men very uncertain in many places which is the word of God and which is the errour or presumption of man and yet we see God hath not thought fit so to provide for us 135 Who can conceive but that an Apostolike Interpretation of all the difficult places of Scripture would have been straÌ„gely beneficiall to the Church especially there being such danger in mistaking the sense of them as is by you pretended and God in his providence foreseeing that the greatest part of Christians would not accept of the Pope for the Iudge of Controversies And yet we see God hath not so ordered the matter 136 Who doth not see that supposing the Bishop of Rome had been appointed Head of the Church and â—â—dge of Controversies that it would have been infinitely beneficiall to the Church perhaps as much as all the rest of the Bible that in some Book of Scripture which was to be undoubtedly received this one Proposition had been set down in Termes The Bishops of Rome shall be alwaies Monarchs of the Church they either alone or with their adherents the Guides of faith and the Iudges of Controversies that shall arise amongst Christians This if you will deal ingenuously you cannot but acknowledge for then all true Christians would have submitted to him as willingly as to Christ himselfe neither needed you and your fellowes have troubled your selfe to invent so many Sophismes for the proofe of it There would have been no more doubt of it among Christians then there is of the Nativity Passion Resurrection or Ascention of Christ. You were best now rubbe your forehead hard and conclude upon us that because this would have been so usefull to have been done therefore it is done Or if you be as I know you are too ingenuous to say so then must you acknowledge that the ground of your Argument which is the very ground of all these absurdities is most absurd and that it is our duty to be humbly thankfull for those sufficient nay abundant meanes of Salvation which God hath of his own goonesse granted us and not conclude he hath done that which he hath not done because forsooth in our vain judgements it seemes convenient he should have done so 137 But you demand what repugnance there is betwixt infallibility in the Church and existence of Scripture that the production of the one must be the destruction of the other Out of which words I can frame no other argument for you theÌ„ this There is no Repugnance between the Scriptures existence and the Churches infallibility therefore the Church is infallible Which consequence will then be good when you can shew that nothing can be untrue but that only which is impossible that whatsoever may be done that also is done Which if it were true would conclude both you and me to be infallible as well as either your Church or Pope in as much as there is no more repugnance between the Scriptures existence and our infallibility then there is between theirs 138 But if Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Iudge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof infallibility went out of the Church This Argument put in forme runs thus No Scripture affirmes that by the entring thereof infallibility went out of the Church Therefore there is an infallible Church therefore the Scripture alone is
not Iudge that is the Rule to judge by But as no Scripture affirmes that by the entring of it Infallibility went out of the Church so neither doe we neither have we any need to doe so But we say that it continued in the Church even together with the Scriptures so long as Christ his Apostles were living and then departed God in his providence having provided a plain and infallible Rule to supply the defect of liuing and infallible Guides Certainly if your cause were good so great a wit as yours is would devise better Arguments to maintain it We can shew no Scripture affirming Infallibility to haue gone out of the Church therefore it is Infallible Somewhat like his discourse that said It could not bee prov'd out of Scripture that the King of Sweden was dead therefore hee is still living Me thinks in all reason you that challenge privileges and exemption from the condition of Men which is to be subject to errour You that by vertue of this privilege usurp authority over mens consciences should produce your Letters-patents from the King of Heaven shew some expresse warrant for this Authority you take upon you otherwise you know the rule is Vbicontrarium non manifestè probatur praesumitur pro libertate 139 But D. Potter may remember what himselfe teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in points Fundamentall and consequently that Infallibility in the Church doth well agree with the Truth the Sanctitie yea with the sufficiency of Scripture for all matters necessary to salvation Still your discourse is so far from hitting the white that it roves quite besides the But. You conclude that the infallibility of the Church may well agree with the Truth the Sanctity the Sufficiency of Scripture But what is this but to abuse your Reader with the proofe of that which no man denies The Question is not whether an infallible Church might agree with Scripture but whether there be an Infallible Church Iam dic Posthume de tribus Capellis Besides you must know there is a wide difference between being infallible in Fundamentals and being an infallible Guide even in Fundamentals D. Potter saies that the Church is the former that is There shall be some men in the world while the world lasts which erre not in Fundamentals for otherwise there should be no Church For to say the Church while it is the Church may erre in Fundamentalls implies contradiction and is all one as to say The Church while it is the Church may not be the Church So that to say that the Church is infallible in Fundamentalls signifies no more but this There shall be a Church in the world for ever But wee utterly deny the Church to be the latter for to say so were to oblige our selves to finde some certain Society of men of whom we might be certain that they neither doe nor can erre in Fundamentals nor in declaring what is Fundamentall what is not Fundamentall and consequently to make any Church an infallible Guide in Fundamentals would be to make it infallible in all things which she proposes and requires to be believed This therefore we deny both to your and all other Churches of any one denomination as the Greek the Roman the Abyssine that is indeed we deny it simply to any Church For no Church can possibly be fit to be a Guide but only a Church of some certain denominatiō For otherwise no man can possibly know which is the true Church but by a pre-examination of the doctrine controverted and that were not to be guided by the Church to the true doctrine but by the true doctrine to the Church Hereafter therefore when you heare Protestants say The Church is Infallible in Fundamentalls you must not conceiue them as if they meant as you doe that some Society of Christians which may be known by adhering to some one Head for example the Pope or the Bishop of Constantinople is infallible in these things but only thus That true Religion shall never be so farre driven out of the world but that it shall alwaies haue some where or other some that believe and professe it in all things necessary to salvation 140 But you would therefore gladly know out of what Text he imagines that the Church by the comming of Scripture was deprived of infallibility in some points and not in others And I also would gladly know why you doe thus frame to your self vaine imaginations thē father them upon others We yeeld unto you That there shall be a Church which never erreth in some points because as wee conceive God hath promised so much but not there shall be such a Church which doth or can erre in no points because we finde not that God hath promised such a Church and therefore wee may not promise such a one to our selves But for the Churches being deprived by the Scripture of Infallibility in some points and not in others that is a wild notion of your own which we haue nothing to doe with 141 But he affirmeth that the Iewish Church retained Infallibility in her selfe and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of him to depriue the Church of Christ of it That the Iewes had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from God in some cases of moment hee doth affirme and had good warrant but that the Synagogue was absolutely Infallible he no where affirmes and therefore it is unjustly unworthily done of you to obtrude it upon him And indeed how can the Infallibility of the Synagogue be conceived but only by setling it in the High Priest and the company adhering and subordinate unto him And whether the high Priest was Infallible when he believed not Christ to be the Messias but condemn'd and excommunicated thē that so professed and caused him to be crucified for saying so I leaue it to Christians to judge But then suppose God had been so pleased to doe as he did not to appoint the Synagogue an infallible guide Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him to appoint such a one to Christians also or say unto him that in wisdome he could not doe otherwise Vaine man that will be thus alwaies tying God to your imaginations It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him but if he will doe this sometime by living Guides sometime by written rules what is that to you may not he doe what he will with his own 142 And whereas you say for the further enforcing of this Argugument that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible then the Synagogue because to the Synagogue all Laws and Ceremonies c. were more particularly and minutely delivered then in the new Testament is done our Saviour leaving particulars to the determination of the Church But I pray walk not thus in generality but tell us what particulars If you mean particular rites ceremonies and orders for goverment we grant it and you
know it to be so because the Church saies so which is Infallible If I aske what meane You by your Church You can tell me nothing but the company of Christians which adhere to the Pope I demaund then lastly Why should I beleive this company to be the infallible Propounder of Divine Revelation And then you tell me that there are many Motives to induce a man to this beleife But are these Motives lastly infallible No say you but very credible Well let them passe for such because now we have not leasure to examine them Yet me thinks seeing the Motives to believe the Churches infallibility are only very credible it should also be but as credible that your Church is Infallible and as credible and no more perhaps somewhat lesse that her proposals particularly Transubstantiation are Divine Revelations And me thinks You should require only a Morall and modest assent to them and not a Divine as you call it and infallible Faith But then of these Motives to the Churches Infallibility I hope you will give us leave to consider and judge whether they be indeed Motives and sufficient or whether they be not Motives at all or not sufficient or whether these Motives or inducements to your Church be not impeached and opposed with Compulsives and enforcements from it or lastly whether these Motives which You use be not indeed only Motives to Christianity and not to Popery giue me leave for distinction sake to call your Religion so If we may not judge of these things how can my judgment be moved with that which comes not within its cognizance If I may then at least I am to be a Iudge of all these Controversies 1. Whether every one of these Motives be indeed a Motive to any Church 2. If to some whether to Yours 3. If to Yours whether sufficient or insufficient 4. Whether other Societies haue not as many and as great Motives to draw me to them 5. Whether I haue not greater reason to beleive you doe erre then that you cannot And now Sir I pray let me trouble You with a few more Questions Am I a sufficient Iudge of these Controversies or no If of these why shall I stay here why not of others Why not of all Nay doth not the true examining of these few containe and lay upon me the examination of all What other Motives to your Church have you but your Notes of it Bellarmine gives some 14. or 15. And one of these fifteene containes in it the examination of all controversies and not only so but of all uncontroverted Doctrines For how shall I or can I know the Church of Romes conformity with the Ancient Church unlesse I know first what the Ancient Church hid hold and then what the Church of Rome doth hold and lastly whether they be conformable or if in my judgment they seeme not conformable I am then to think the Church of Rome not to be the Church for want of the Note which she pretends is proper and perpetuall to it So that for ought I can see Iudges we are and must be of all sides every one for himselfe and God for us all 155 Ad § 26. I answere This assertion that Scripture alone is Iudge of all Controversies in Faith if it be taken properly is neither a Fundamentall nor Vnfundamentall point of Faith nor no point of Faith at all but a plaine falshood It is not a Iudge of Controversies but a Rule to Iudge them by and that not an absolutly perfect Rule but as perfect as a written Rule can be which must alwayes need something else which is either evidently true or evidently credible to give attestation to it and that in this case is Vniversall Tradition So that Vniversall Tradition is the Rule to judge all Controversies by But then because nothing besides Scripture comes to us with as full a streame of Tradition as Scripture Scripture alone and no unwritten Doctrine nor no Infallibility of any Church having attestation from Tradition truely Vniversall for this reason we conceive as the Apostles persons while they were liuing were the only Iudges of controversies so their Writings now they are dead are the only Rule for us to judge them by There being nothing unwritten which can goe in upon halfe so faire cards for the title of Apostolike Tradition as these things which by the confession of both Sides are not so I mean the doctrine of the Millenaries and of the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants 156 Yet when we say the Scripture is the only Rule to judge all Controversies by me thinks you should easily conceiue that wee would be understood of all those that are possible to be judg'd by Scripture and of those that arise among such as believe the Scripture For if I had a controversie with an Atheist whether there were a God or no I would not say that the Scripture were a Rule to judge this by seeing that doubting whether there be a God or no he must needs doubt whether the Scripture be the word of God or if hee does not hee grants the Question and is not the man we speak of So likewise if I had a controversie about the Truth of Christ with a lew it would be vainly done of me should I presse him which the Authority of the new Testament which he believes not untill out of some principles common to us both I had persuaded him that it is the Word of God The New Testament therefore while he remaines a Iew would not be a fit Rule to decide this Controversie In as much as that which is doubted of it selfe is not fit to determine other doubts So likewise if there were any that believed Christian Religion and yet believed not the Bible to be the Word of God though they believed the matter of it to be true which is no impossible supposition for I may believe a book of S. Austines to containe nothing but the Truth of God yet not to haue been inspired by God himselfe against such men therefore there were no disputing out of the Bible because nothing in question can be a proof to it selfe When therefore we say the Scripture is a sufficient meanes to determine all controversies we say not this either to Atheists Iewes Turks or such Christians if there be any such as believe not Scripture to be the word of God But among such men only as are already agreed upon this That the Scripture is the Word of God we say all controversies that arise about Faith are either not at all decidable consequently not necessary to be believed one way or other or they may be determined by Scripture In a Word That all things necessary to be believed are evidently contain'd in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed And our reason hereof is convincing because nothing can challenge our beliefe but what hath descended to us from Christ by Originall and Vniversall
that there is no falshood at all but only want of divine testification in which case D. Potter must either grant that it is a fundamentall error to apply divine revelation to any point not revealed or else must yeeld that the Church may erre in her Proposition or Custody of the Canon of Scripture And so we cannot be sure whether she have not been deceived already in Bookes recommended by her and accepted by Christians And thus we shall have no certainty of Scripture if the Church want certainty in all her definitions And it is worthy to be observed that some Bookes of Scripture which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterward received for such but never any one book or syllable defined by the Church to be Canonicall was afterward questioned or rejected for Apocryphall A signe that Gods Church is infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost never to propose as divine truth any thing not revealed by God and that Oâ—ission to define points not sufficiently discussed is laudable but Commission in propounding things not revealed inexcusable into which precipitation our Saviour Christ never hath nor never will permit his Church to fall 13 Nay to limit the generall promises of our Saviour Christ made to his Church to points only fundamentall namely that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her and that the holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth c. is to destroy all faith For we may by that doctrine and manner of interpreting the Scripture limit the Infallibility of the Apostles words preaching only to Points fundamentall and whatsoever generall Texts of Scripture shall be alleadged for their infallibility they may by D. Potter example be explicated and restrained to points fundamentall By the same reason it may be farther affirmed that the Apostles and other writers of Canonicall Scripture were endued with infallibility only in setting down points fundamentall For if it be urged that all Scripture is divinely inspired that it is the word of God c. D. Potter hath afforded you a ready answer to say that Scripture is inspired c. only in those parts or parcels wherein it delivereth fundamentall points In this manner D. Fotherby saith The Apostle twice in one Chapter professed that this he speaketh and not the Lord He is very well content that where he lacks the warrant of the expresse word of God that part of his writings should be esteemed as the word of man D. Potter also speaks very dangerously towards this purpose Sect. 5. where he endeavoureth to prove that the infallibility of the Church is limited to points fundamentall because as Nature so God is neither defective in necessaries nor lavish in supersâ—uities Which reason doth likewise prove that the infallibility of Scripture and of the Apostles must be restrained to points necessary to salvation that so God be not accused as defective in necessaries or lavish in supersâ—uities In the same place he hath a discourse much tending to this purpose where speaking of these words The Spirit shall lead you into all truth and shall abide with you for ever he saith Though that promise was directly and primarily made to the Apostles who had the Spirits guidance in a more high and absolute manner then any since them yet it was made to themfor the behoof of the Church and is verified in the Church Vniversall But all truth is not simply all but all of some kind To be led into all truths is to know and believe them And who is so simple as to be ignorant that there are many millions of truths in Nature History Divinity whereof the Church is simply ignorant How many truths lye unrevealea in the infinite treasury of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted c. so then the truth it selfe enforceth us to understand by all truths not simply all not all which God can possibly reveal but all pertaining to the substance of faith all truth absolutely necessary to salvation Mark what he saith That promise The spirit shall lead you into all truth was made directly to the Apostles and is verified in the universall Church but by all truth is not understood simply all but all apperraining to the substance of faith and absolutely necessary to salvation Doth it not hence follow that the promise made to the Apostles of being led into all truth is to be understood only of all truth absolutely necessary to salvation and consequently their preaching and writing were not infallible in points not fundamentall or if the Apostles were infallible in all things which they proposed as divine truth the like must be affirmed of the Church because D. Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church And as he limits the aforesaid words to points fundamentall so may he restrain what other text soever that can be brought for the universall infallibility of the Apostles or Scriptures So he may and so he must least otherwise he receive this answer of his own from himselfe How many truths lye unrevealed in the infinite treasurie of Gods wisdome wherewith the Church is not acquainted And therefore to verify such generall sayings they must be understood of truths absolutely necessary to Salvation Are not these fearfull consequences And yet D. Potter will never be able to avoid them till he come to acknowledge the infallibility of the Church in all points by her proposed as divine truths and thus it is universally true that she is lead into all truth in regard that our Saviour never permits her to define or teach any falshood 14 All that with any colour may be replied to this argument is That if once we call any one Book or parcell of Scripture in question although for the matter it contain no fundamentall error yet it is of great importance and fundamentall by reason of the consequence because if once we doubt of one Book received for Canonicall the whole canon is made doubtfull and uncertain and therefore the infallibility of Scripture must be universall and not confined within compasse of points fundamentall 15 I answere For the thing it selfe it is very true that if I doubt of any one parcell of Scripture received for such I may doubt of all and thence by the same parity I inferre that if we did doubt of the Churches infallibility in some points we could not believe her in any one and consequently not in propounding Canonicall Bookes of any other points fundamentall or not fundamentall which thing being most absurd and withall most impious we must take away the ground thereof and believe that she cannot erre in any point great or small and so this reply doth much more strengthen what we intend to prove Yet I adde that Protestants cannot make use of this reply with any good coherence to this their distinction and some other doctrines which they defend Por if D. Potter can tell what points in particular be fundamentall as in
his 7. Sect. he pretendeth then he may be sure that whensoever he meetes with such points in Scripture in them it is infallibly true although it might erre in others and not only true but cleere because Protestants teach that in matters necessary to Salvation the Scripture is so cleere that all such necessary truths are either manifestly contained therein or may be cleerely deduced from it Which Doctrines being put together to wit That Scriptures cannot erre in points fundamentall that they cleerely containe all such points and that they can tell what points in particular be such I mean fundamentall it is manifest that it is sufficient for Salvation that Scripture be infallible only in points fundamentall For supposing these doctrines of theirs to be true they may be sure to find in Scripture all points necessary to Salvation although it were fallible in other points of lesse moment Neyther will they be able to avoid this impiety against holy Scripture till they renounce their other doctrines and in particular till they believe that Christs promise to his Church are not limited to points fundamentall 16 Besides from the fallibility of Christs Catholique Church in some points it followeth that no true Protestant earned or unlearned doth or can with assurance believe the universall Church in any one point of doctrine Not in points of lesser moment which they call not fundamentall because they believe that in such points she may erre Not in fundamentalls because they must know what points be fundamentall before they goe to learn of her least otherwise they be rather deluded then instructed in regard that her certain and infallible direction extends only to points fundamentall Now if before they addresse themselves to the Church they must know what points are fundamentall they learn not of her but will be as fit to teach as to be taught by her How then are all Christians so often so seriously upon so dreadfull menaces by Fathers Scriptures and our blessed Saviour himselfe counselled and commanded to seeke to hear to obey the Church S. Austine was of a very different mind from Protestants If saith he the Church through the whole world practise any of these things to dispute whether that ought to be so done is a most insolent madnesse And in another place he saith That which the whole Church holds and is not ordained by Councels but hath alwaies been kept is most rightly believed to be delivered by Apostolicall authority The same holy Father teacheth that the custome of baptizing children cannot be proved by Scripture alone and yet that it is to be believed as derived from the Apostles The custome of our Mother the Church saith he in baptizing infants iâ— in no wise to be contemned nor to be accounted superfluous nor is it at all to be believed unlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition And elsewhere Christ is of profit to Children baptized Is he therefore of profit to persons not believing But God forbid that I should say infants doe not believe I have already said he believes in another who finned in another It is said be believes and it is of force and he is reckoned among the faithfull that are baptized This the authority of our Mother the Church hath against this strength against this invincible wall whosoever rusheth shall be crushed in pieces To this argument the Protestants in the Conference at Ratishon gaue this round answer Nos ab Augustino hac in parte libere dissentimas In this we plainly disagree from Augustine Now if this doctrine of baptizing Infants be not fundamentall in D. Potters sense then according to S. Augustine the infallibility of the Church extends to points not fundamentall But if on the other side it be a fundamentall point then according to the same holy Doctour we must rely on the authority of the Church for some fundamentall point not contained in Scripture but delivered by Tradition The like argument I frame out of the same Father about the not rebaptizing of those who were baptized by Heretiques whereof he excellently to our present purpose speaketh in this manner Wee follow indeed in this matter even the most certaine authority of Canonicall all Scriptures But how Consider his words Although verily there be brought no example for this point out of the Canonicall Scriptures yet even in this point the truth of the same Scriptures is held by us while we doe that which the authority of Scriptures doth recommend that so because the holy Scripture cannot deceaue us whosoever is afraid to be deceaved by the obscurity of this question must haue recourse to the same Church concerning it which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate to us Among many other points in the aforesaid words we are to obserue that according to this holy Father when we prove some points not particularly contained in Scripture by the authority of the Church even in that case we ought not to be said to belieue such points without Scripture because Scripture it selfe recommends the Church and therefore relying on her we relye on Scripture without danger of being deceaved by the obscurity of any question defined by the Church And elsewhere he faithi Seeing this is written in no Scripture we must belieue the testimony of the Church which Christ declareth to speak the truth But it seemes D. Potter is of opinion that this doctrine about not rebaptizing such as were baptized by Heretiques is no necessary point of faith nor the contrary an heresie wherein he contradicteth S. Augustine from whom we haue now heard that what the Church teacheth is truly said to be taught by Scripture and consequently to deny this particular point delivered by the Church is to oppose Scripture it selfe Yet if he will needs hold that this point is not fundamentall we must conclude out of S. Augustine as we did concerning the baptizing of Children that the infallibility of the Church reacheth to points not fundamentall The same Father in another place concerning this very question of the validity of Baptisme conferred by Heretiques saith The Apostles indeed haue prescribed nothing of this but this Custome ought to be believed to be originally taken from their tradition as there are many things that the universall Church observeth which are therefore with good reason believed to haue been commanded by the Apostles although they be not written No lesse cleer is S. Chrysoslome for the infallibility of the Traditions of the Church For treating these words 2. Thess. 2. Stand hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether by speech or by Epistle saith Hence it is manifest that they delivered not all things by letter but many things also without writing and these also are worthy of beliefe Let us therefore account the tradition of the Church to be worthy of beliefe It is a Tradition Seek no more Which words are so plainly against Protestants that Whitaker is as plaine with S. Chrysostome
the totall deniall of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary maketh it of equall necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we are to hold that we remember him to be the Sonne of God and the Sonne of Man because the one without the other can giue no hope of Salvatioâ— And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrine of Hooker and Morton The Reader may be pleased to approue or reject it as he shall finde cause And in another place he sheweth so much good liking of this doctrine that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetuall Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his book he is carefull to declare and illustrate it more at large then he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they haue no certainty what points be fundamentall As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but â—s indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian like jesting at all Religion placeth Arianisme among fundamentall Errours But contrarily an English Protestant Divine masked under the name of Irenaeus Philalethes in a little Book in Latine intituled Dissertatio de pace concordia Ecclesiae endeavoureth to proue that even the deniall of the blessed Trinity may stand with salvation Divers Protestants haue taught that the Roman Church erreth in fundamentall points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be fundamentall points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Errour in the matter and the nature of it properly hereticall because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatâ—â— And yet many Protestants are so farre from holding that Doctrine to be a fundamentall errour that themselves goe further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no â—rue Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you haue no agreement in specifying what be fundamentall points neither haue you any meanes to determine what they be for if you have any such meanes why doe you not agree You tell us the Creed containes all points fundamentallâ— which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge agreement in such points And no wonder For besides what I haue said already in the begining of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and spent paper to prove that the Creed containes all fundamentall points you conclude It remaines very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those fundamentall truths whereof consists the Vâ—â—ty of faith and of the Catholique Church Very probable Then according to all good Logick the contrary may remain very probable and so all remain as full of uncertainty as before The whole Rule say you the sole Iudge of your faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldome doth qualify them or declare whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation You fall heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of fundamentall points which yet you are obliged in conscience to doe if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he haue faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in ill part if we againe and againe demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairely I will performe on our behalfe what we request of you and doe here deliver a Catalogue wherein are comprized all points by us taught to be necessary to Salvation in these words We are obliged under paine of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another minde all Catholiques denounce him to be no Catholique But enough of this And I go forward with the Infallibility of the Church in all points 20 For euen out of your own doctrine that the Church cannot erre in points necessary to salvation any wise man will inferre that it behoves all who haue care of their soules not to forsake her in any one point 1. Because they are assured that although her doctrine proved not to be true in some point yet even according to D. Potter the errour cannot be fundamentall nor destructiue of faith and salvation neither can they be accused of any least imprudence in erring if it were possible with the universall Church Secondly since she is under paine of eternall damnation to be believed and obeyed in some things wherein confessedly she is endued with infallibilitie I cannot in wisedome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment For who would trust another in matters of highest consequence and be affraid to rely on him in things of lesse moment Thirdly since as I said we are undoubtedly obliged not to forsake her in the chiefest or fundamentall points and that there is no Rule to know precisely what and how many those fundamentall points be I cannot without hazard of my soule leaue her in any one point least perhaps that point or points wherein I forsake her proue indeed to be fundamentall and necessary to salvation Fourthly that visible Church which cannot erre in points fundamentall doth without distinction propound all her Definitions concerning matters of faith to be believed under Anathema's or Curses esteeming all those who resist to be deservedly cast out of her Communion and holding it a point necessary to salvation that we believe she cannot erre wherein if she speak true then to deny any one point in particular which she defineth or to affirm in generall that she may erre puts a man into state of damnation Whereas to belieue her in such points as are not necessary to salvation cannot endanger salvation and likewise to remain in her Communion can bring no great harme because she cannot maintain any damnable errour or practise but to be divided from her she being Christs Catholique Church is most certainly damnable Fifthly the true Church being in lawfull and certain possession of Superiority and Power to command and require Obedience from all Christians in some things I cannot without grievous sinne withdraw my obedience in any one unlesse I evidently know that the thing commanded comes not within the compasse of those things to which her Power extendeth And who can better inform me how far God's Church can proceed then Gods Church her selfe Or to what Doctour can the Children and Schollers with greater reason and more security fly for direction then to the Mother and appointed Teacher of all Christians In following her I shall sooner be excused then incleaving to any particular Sâ—ct or Person teaching or applying Scriptures against her doctrine or interpretation Sixtly the fearfull examples of innumerable persons who forsaking the
the deniall of this Fundamentall truth that all which God saies is true Notwithstanding in themselues there is a main difference between them Points fundamentall being those onely which are revealed by God and commanded to bee preacht to all and believed by all Points circumstantiall being such as though God hath revealed them yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under paine of damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where and the people may be securely ignorant of them 21 You say Not erring in points Fundamentall is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church because any Errour maintained by it against Gods revelation is destructive I answer If you mean against Gods Revelation known by the Church to be so it is true but impossible that the Church should doe so for ipso Facto in doing it it were a Church no longer But if you mean against some Revelation which the Church by errour thinks to bee no Revelation it is false The Church may ignorantly disbelieue such a Revelation and yet continue a Church which thus I proue That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention in these words Goe and teach all Nations Mat. 29. 19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause the Church disbelieved it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts untill the conversion of Cornelius and yet was still a Church Therefore to disbelieue some divine Revelation not knowing it to be so is not destructive of salvation or of the being of the Church Again It is a plaine Revelation of God that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kindes and that the publique Hymnes and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing by reason of the veile before their eyes their Churches supposed infallibility I hope the deniall of them shall not be laid to their charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the Foundations not overthrowing the Foundation it selfe 22 Ad § 2. In the beginning of this Paragraph wee haue this Argument against this Distinction It is enough by D. Potters confession to belieue some things negatiuely i. e. not to deny them Therefore all deniall of any divine truth excludes Salvation As if you should say One Horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therefore without a horse no man can goe a journey As if some Divine Truthes viâ— Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denied and others for want of sufficient declaration deniable without danger Indeed if D. Potter had said there had been no divine Truth declared sufficiently or not declared but must upon pain of damnation be believed or at least not denied then might you justly haue concluded as you doe but now that some may not be denied and that some may be denied without damnation why they may not both stand together I doe not yet understand 23 In the Remainder you in ferre out of D. Potters words That all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different which for ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant Yet I deny your illation from hence That the distinction of points into fundamentall and unfundamentall is vaine and uneffectuall for the purpose of Protestants For though being alike propos'd as divine truths they are by accident alike necessary yet the reall difference still remaines between them that they are not alike necessary to be proposed 24 Ad § 5. The next Paragraph if it be brought out of the clouds will I belieue haue in it these Propositions 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures 2. The Nature of Faith is taken not from the matter believed for then they that believed different matters should haue different Faiths but from the Motive to it 3. This Motiue is Gods Revelation 4. This Revelation is alike for all obiects 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God Therefore they forsake the formall motiue of faith and therefore haue no faith nor unity therein Which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up â— weak discourse wherein both the Propositions are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the conclusion utterly inconsequent First for the second Proposition who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits therefore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit be speciall from the Act and Object in speciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moues who can doubt that knows that a motiue is an efficient cause and that the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect For the fourth that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects It is ambiguous and if the sense of it be that his Revelation is an equall Motive to induce us to belieue all objects revealed by him it is true but impertinent If the sense of it be that all objects revealed by God are alike that is alike plainly and undoubtedly revealed by him it is pertinent but most untrue Witnesse the great diversity of Texts of Scripture whereof some are so plain and evident that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them Some are so obscure and ambiguous that to say this or this is the certain sense of them were high presumption For the 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselues perhaps but not equally to them whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions and consequently some of them more enclined to belieue such a sense of Scripture others to belieue another which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions is to disparage his goodnesse But to what purpose is it that these things are equally revealed to both as the light is equally revealed to all blind men if they be not fully revealed to either The sense of this Scripture Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead and this He shall bee saved yet so as by fire and a thousand others is equally revealed to you and to another interpreter that is certainly to neither Hee now conceiues one sense of them and you another and would it not be an excellent inference if I should conclude now as you doe That you forsake the formall motiue of faith which is Gods revelation and consequently loose all faith and unity therein So likewise the Iesuites and Dominicans the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things equaâ—ly revealed by Almighty God and seeing they doe so I beseech you let me understand
why this reason will not exclude them as well as Protestants from all faith and unity therein Thus you haue fayl'd of your undertaking in your first part of your Title and that is a very ill omen especially in points of so streight mutuall dependance that we shall haue but slender performance in your second assumpt Which is That the Church is infallible in all her Definitions whether concerning points Fundamentall or not Fundamentall 25 Ad § 7. 8. The Reasons in these two paragraphs as they were alleaged before so they were before answered and thither I remit the Reader 26 Ad § 9. 10. 11. I grant that the Church cannot without damnable sinne either deny any thing to be true which she knowes to be Gods truth or propose any thing as his truth which she knowes not to be so But that she may not doe this by ignorance or mistake and so without damnable sinne that you should haue proved but haue not But say you this excuse cannot serue for if the Church bee assisted onely for points fundamentall she cannot but know that she may erre in points not fundamentall Ans. It does not follow unlesse you suppose that the Church knowes that she is assisted no farther But if being assisted only so farre she yet did conceaue by errour her assistance absolute and unlimited or if knowing her assistance restrained to fundamentalls she yet conceived by errour that she should bee guarded from proposing any thing but what was fundamentall then the consequence is apparently false But at least she cannot be certain that she cannot erre and therefore cannot be excus'd from headlong and pernicious temerity in proposing points not fundamentall to be believed by Christians as matters of faith Ans. Neither is this deduction worth any thing unlesse it bee understood of such unfundamentall points as shee is not warranted to propose by evident Text of Scripture Indeed if she propose such as matters of faith certainly true she may well be questioned Quo Warranto Shee builds without a foundation and saies thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so which cannot be excus'd from rashnesse and high presumption such a presumption as an Embassadour should commit who should say in his Masters name that for which hee hath no commission Of the same nature I say but of a higher straine as much as the King of Heaven is greater then any earthly King But though she may erre in some points not fundamentall yet may shee haue certainty enough in proposing others as for example these That Abraham begat Isaac that S. Paul had a Cloak that Timothy was sick because these though not Fundamentall i. e. no essentiall parts of Christianity yet are evidently and undeniably set down in Scripture and consequently may be without all rashnes propos'd by the Church as certaine divine Revelations Neither is your Argument concluding when you say If in such things she may be deceived she must be alwaies uncertain of all such things For my sense may sometimes possibly deceiue me yet I am certain enough that I see what I see and feel what I feel Our Iudges are not infallible in their judgements yet are they certain enough that they judge aright and that they proceed according to the evidence that is given when they condemne a theef or a murtherer to the gallows A Traveller is not alwaies certain of his way but often mistaken and does it therefore follow that hee can haue no assurance that Charing crosse is his right way from the Temple to White-Hall The ground of your errour here is your not distinguishing between Actuall certainty and Absolute infallibility Geometricians are not infallible in their own science yet they are very certain of those things which they see demonstrated And Carpenters are not infallible yet certain of the straightnesse of those things which agree with their rule and square So though the Church be not infallibly certain that in all her Definitions whereof some are about disputable and ambiguous matters she shall proceed according to her Rule yet being certain of the infallibility of her rule and that in this or that thing she doth manifestly proceed according to it she may be certaine of the Truth of some particular decrees and yet not certain that shee shall never decree but what is true 27 Ad § 12. But if the Church may erre in points not fundamentall she may erre in proposing Scripture and so we cannot bee assur'd whether she haue not been deceived already The Church may erre in her Proposition or custody of the Canon of Scripture if you understand by the Church any present Church of one denomination fo◠example the Roman the Greek or so Yet haue we sufficient certainty of Scripture not from the bare testimony of any present Church but from Vniversall Tradition of which the testimony of any present Church is but a little part So that here you fall into the Fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For in effect this is the sense of your Argument Vnlesse the Church be infallible we can haue no certainty of Scripture from the authority of the Church Therefore unlesse the Church be infallible we can have no certainty here of at all As if a man should say If the vintage of France miscarry we can have no wine from France Therefore if that Vintage miscarry we can have no Wine at all And for the incorruption of Scripture I know no other rationall assurance we can have of it then such as we have of the incorruption of other ancient Bookes that is the consent of ancient Copies such I mean for the kind though it be farre greater for the degree of it And if the spirit of God give any man any other assurance hereof this is not rationall and discursive but supernaturall and infused An assurance it may be to himselfe but no argument to another As for the infallibility of the Church it is so farre from being a proofe of the Scriptures incorruption that no proofe can be pretended for it but incorrupted places of Scripture which yet are as subject to corruption as any other and more likely to have been corrupted if it had been possible then any other and made to speak as they doe for the advantage of those men whose ambition it hath been a long time to bring all under their authority Now then if any man should prove the Scriptures uncorrupted because the Church saies so which is infallible I would demand again touching this very thing that there is an infallible Church seeing it is not of it selfe evident how shall I be assured of it And what can he answer but that the Scripture saies so in these and these places Hereupon I would aske him how shall I be assured that the Scriptures are incorrupted in thse places seeing it is possible and not altogether improbable that these men which desire to be thought infallible when they had the government of
all things in their own hands may have altered them for their purpose If to this he answer again that the Church is infallible and therefore cannot doe so I hope it would be apparent that he runs round in a circle and proves the Scriptures incorruption by the Churches infallibility and the Churches infallibility by the Scriptures incorruption and that is in effect the Churches infallibility by the Churches infallibility and the Scriptures incorruption by the Scriptures incorruption 28 Now for your observation that some Bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received for such But never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards questioned or rejected for Apocryphall I demand touching the first sort whether they were commended to the Church by the Apostles as Canonicall or not If not seeing the whole faith was preached by the Apostles to the Church and seeing after the Apostles the Church pretends to no new Revelations how can it be an Article of faith to believe them Canonicall And how can you pretend that your Church which makes this an article of faith is so assisted as not to propose any thing as a divine truth which is not revealed by God If they were how then is the Church an infallible keeper of the CanoÌ„ of Scripture which hath suffered some Bookes of Canonicall Scripture to be lost others to loose for a long time their being Canonicall at least the necessity of being so esteemed and afterwards as it were by the law of Post liminium hath restored their Authority and Canonicalnesse unto them If this was delivered by the Apostles to the Church the point was sufficiently discussed and therefore your Churches omission to teach it for some ages as an article of faith nay degrading it from the number of articles of faith and putting it among disputable problems was surely not very laudable If it were not revealed by God to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the Church then can it be no Revelation and therefore her presumption in proposing it as such is inexcusable 19 And then for the other part of it that never any book or syllable defined for Canonicall was afterwards question'd or rejected for Apocryphall Certainly it is a bold asseveration but extreamly false For I demand The Book of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdome the Epistle of Saint Iames and to the Heb. were they by the Apostles appoved for Canonicall or no If not with what face dare you approve them and yet pretend that all your doctrine is Apostolicall Especially seeing it is evident that this point is not deducible by rationall discourse from any other defined by them If they were approved by them this I hope was a sufficient definition and therefore you were best rub your forehead hard and say that these Books were never questioned But if you doe so then I shall be bold to aske you what bookes you meant in saying before Some bookes which were not alwaies known to be Canonicall have been afterwards received Then for the book of Macchabes I hope you will say it was defin'd for Canonicall before S. Gregories time and yet he lib. 19. Moral c. 13. citing a testimony out of it prefaceth to it after this manner Concerning which matter we doe not amisse if we produce a testimony out of Bookes although not Canonicall yet set forth for the edification of the Church For Eleazar in the Book of Machabees c. Which if it be not to reject it from being Canonicall is without question at least to question it Moreover because you are so punctuall as to talk of words and syllables I would know whether before Sixtus Quint us his time your Church had a defined Canon of Scripture or not If not then was your Church surely a most Vigilant keeper of Scripture that for 1500 yeares had not defined what was Scripture and what was not If it had then I demand was it that set forth by Sixtus or that set forth by Clement or a third different from both If it were that set forth by Sixtus then is it now condemned by Clement if that of Clement it was condemned I say but sure you will say contradicted and question'd by Sixtus If different from both then was it question'd and condemned by both and still lies under the condemnation But then lastly suppose it had been true That both some Book not known to be Canonicall had been received and that never any after receiving had been questioned How had this been a signe that the Church is infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost In what mood or figure would this conclusion follow out of these Premises Certainly your flying to such poor signes as these are is to me a great signe that you labour with penury of better arguments and that thus to catch at shadowes and bulâ—ushes is a shrewd signe of a sinking cause 30 Ad § 13. We are told here That the generall promises of Infallibility to the Church must not be restrained only to points fundamentall Because then the Apostles words and writings may also be so restrained The Argument put in forme and made compleat by supply of the concealed Proposition runs thus The Infallibility promised to the present Church of any age is as absolute and unlimited as that promised to the Apostles in their Preaching and Writings But the Apostles Infallibility is not to be limited to Fundamentalls Therefore neither is the Churches Infallibility thus to be limited Or thus The Apostles Infallibility in their Preaching and writing may be limited to Fundamentalls as well as the Infallibility of the present Church But that is not to be done Therefore this also is not to be done Now to this Argument I answere that if by may be as well in the major Proposition be understood may be as possibly it is true but impertinent If by it we understand may be as iustly and rightly It is very pertinent but very false So that as D. Potter limits the infallibility of the Present Church unto Fundamentalls so another may limit the Apostles unto them also He may doe it de facto but de iure he cannot that may be done and done lawfully this also may be done but not lawfully That may be done and if it be done cannot be confuted This also may be done but if it be done may easily be confuted It is done to our hand in this very Paragraph by five words taken out of Scripture All Scripture is divinely inspired Shew but as much for the Church Shew where it is written That all the decrees of the Church are divinely inspired and the Controversy will be at an end Besides there is not the same reason for the Churches absolute infallibility as for the Apostles and Scriptures For if the Church fall into error it may be reformed by comparing it with the rule of the Apostles doctrine and Scripture But if the Apostles have erred in delivering the doctrine of Christianity to whom
that All which they were led into was not simply All otherwise S. Paul erred in saying we know in part but such an All as was requisite to make them the Churches Foundations Now such they could not be without freedome from errour in all those things which they delivered constantly as certaine revealed Truths For if we once suppose they may haue erred in some things of this nature it will be utterly undiscernable what they haue erred in what they haue not Whereas though wee suppose the Church hath err'd in somethings yet we haue meanes to know what she hath err'd in and what she hath not I mean by comparing the Doctrine of the present Church with the doctrine of the Primitiue Church delivered in Scripture But then last of all suppose the Doctor had said which I know he never intended that this promise in this place made to the Apostles was to bee understood only of a Truth absolutely necessary to salvation Is it consequent that he makes their Preaching and Writing not Infallible in points not fundamentall Doe you not blush for shame at this Sophistry The Dr saies no more was promised in this place Therefore he saies no more was promised Are there not other places besides this And may not that be promised in other places which is not promised in this 34 But if the Apostles were Infallible in all things propos'd by them as Divine Truths the like must be affirm'd of the Church because Doctor Potter teacheth the said promise to be verified in the Church True hee does so but not in so absolute a manner Now what is oppos'd to Absolute but limited or restrained To the Apostles then it was made to them only yet the words are true of the Church And this very promise might haue been made to it though here it is not They agree to the Apostles in a higher to the Church in a lower sense to the Apostles in a more absolute to the Church in a more limited sense To the Apostles absolutely for the Churches direction to the Church Conditionally by adherence to that direction and so farre as she doth adhere to it In a word the Apostles were led into all Truths by the Spirit efficaciter The Church is led also into all truth by the Apostles writings sufficienter So that the Apostles and the Church may be fitly compared to the Starre and the Wisemen The Starre was directed by the finger of God and could not but goe right to the place where Christ was But the Wise men were led by the Starre to Christ led by it I say not efficaciter or irresistibiliter but sufficienter so that if they would they might follow it if they would not they might choose So was it between the Apostles writing Scriptures the Church They in their writing were Infallibly assisted to propose nothing as a divine Truth but what was so The Church is also led into all Truth but it is by the intervening of the Apostles writings But it is as the Wisemen were led by the Starre or as a Traveller is directed by a Mercuriall statue or as a Pilot by his Card and Compasse led sufficiently but not irresistibly led so that she may follow not so that she must For seeing the Church is a society of men whereof every one according to the Doctrine of the Romish Church hath freewill in believing it follows that the whole aggregate has freewill in believing And if any man say that at least it is morally impossible that of so many wâ—ereof all may belieue aright not any should doe so I answer It is true if they did all giue themselues any liberty of judgement But if all as the case is here captivate their understandings to one of them all are as likely to erre as that one And he more likely to erre then any other because hee may erre and thinks he cannot because he conceiues the Spirit absolutly promis'd to the succession of Bishops of which many haue been notoriously and confessedly wicked men Men of the World whereas this Spirit is the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receiue because he seeth him not neither knoweth him Besides let us suppose that neither in this nor in any other place God had promised any more unto them but to lead them into all Truth necessary for their own other mens salvation Does it therefore follow that they were de facto led no farther God indeed is oblig'd by his Veracity to doe all that hee has promised but is there any thing that binds him to doe no more May not he be better then his word but you will quarrell at him May not his Bounty exceed his Promise And may not we haue certainty enough that oftimes it does so God did not promise to Solomon in his vision at Gibeon any more then what he askt which was wisdome to govern his people and that he gaue him But yet I hope you will not deny that we haue certainty enough that he gaue him something which neither God had promised nor he had asked If you doe you contradict God himselfe For Behold saith God because thou hast asked this thing I haue done according to thy word Loe I haue given thee a Wise and an Vnderstanding heart so that there was none like thee before thee neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee And I haue also given thee that which thou hast not asked both riches and honour so that there shall not be any among the Kings like unto thee in all thy dayes God for ought appeares never oblig'd himselfe by promise to shew S. Paul those Vnspeakable mysteries which in the third Heaven he shewed unto him and yet I hope we haue certainty enough that he did so God promises to those that seek his Kingdome and the righteousnesse thereof that all things necessary shall be added vnto them and in rigour by his promise he is obliged to doe no more and if hee giue them necessaries he hath discharged his obligation Shall we therefore be so injurious to his bounty towards us as to say it is determined by the narrow bounds of meere necessity So though God had obliged himselfe by promise to giue his Apostles infallibility onely in things necessary to salvation neverthelesse it is utterly inconsequent that he gaue them no more then by the rigour of his promise he was engaged to doe or that we can haue no assurance of any farther assistance that he gaue them especially when he himselfe both by his word and by his works hath assured us that he did assist them farther You see by this time that your chaine of feareful consequences as you call them is turned to a rope of sand and may easily bee avoided without any flying to your imaginary infallibility of the Church in all her proposalls 35 Ad § 14. 15. Doubting of a Book receaved for Canonicall may signifie either doubting whether it be Canonicall or supposing
Traditions as in defining emergent controversies Again it followes not because the Churches Authority is warrant enough for us to believe some doctrine touching which the Scripture is silent therefore it is Warrant enough to believe these to which the Scripture seemes repugnant Now the Doctrines which S. Austine received upon the Churches Authority were of the first sort the Doctrines for which we deny your Churches infallibility are of the second And therefore though the Churches authority might be strong enough to bear the weight which S. Austine laid upon it yet happily if may not be strong enough to bear that which you lay upon it Though it may support some Doctrines without Scripture yet surely not against it And last of all to deal ingeniously with you and the World I am not such an Idolater of S. Austine as to think a thing proved sufficiently because he saies it nor that all his sentences are oracles and particularly in this thing that whatsoever was practised or held by the Vniversall Church of his time must needs have come from the Apostles Though considering the neerenesse of his time to the Apostles I think it a good probable way and therefore am apt enough to follow it when I see no reason to the contrary Yet I professe I must have better satisfaction before I can induce my selfe to hold it certain and infallible And this not because Popery would come in at this dore as some have vainly feared but because by the Church Vniversall of some time and the Church Vniversall of other times I see plain contradictions held and practised Both which could not come from the Apostles for then the Apostles had been teachers of falshood And therefore the belief or practise of the present Vniversall Church can be no infallible proof that the Doctrine so beleived or the custome so practised came from the Apostles I instance in the doctrine of the Millenaries and the Eucharists necessity for infants both which Doctrines have been taught by the consent of the eminent Fathers of some ages without any opposition from any of their Contemporaries and were delivered by them not as Doctors but as Witnesses not as their own opinions but as Apostolike Traditions And therefore measuring the doctrine of the Church by all the Rules which Cardinall Perron gives us for that purpose both these Doctrines must be acknowledged to have been the doctrines of the Ancient Church of some age or ages And that the contrary Doctrines were Catholique at some other time I believe you will not think it needfull for me to prove So that either I must say the Apostles were fountaines of contradictious doctrines or that being the Vniversall Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles Besides who can warrant us that the Vniversall Traditions of the Church were all Apostolicall seeing in that famous place for Traditions in Tertullian Quicunque traditor any author whatsoever is founder good enough for them And who can secure us that Humane inventions and such as came à quocunque Traditore might not in a short time gain the reputation of Apostolique Seeing the direction then was Precepta maâ—orum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat 45 No lesse you say is S. Chrysost. for the infallible Traditions of the Church But you were to prove the Church infallible not in her Traditions which we willingly grant if they be as universall as the Tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is to be as infallible as the Scripture is for neither does being written make the word of God the more infallible nor being unwritten make it the lesse infallible Not therefore in her universall Traditions were you to prove the Church infallible but in all her Decrees and definitions of Controversies To this point when you speak you shall have an answer but hitherto you doe but wander 46 But let us see what S. Chrysostome saies They the Apostles delivered not all things in writing who denies it but many things also without writing who doubts of it and these also are worthy of belief Yes if we knew what they were But many things are worthy of belief which are not necessary to be believed As that Iulius Caesar was Emperour of Rome is a thing worthy of belief being so well testified as it is but yet it is not necessary to be believed a man may be saved without it Those many workes which our Saviour did which S. Iohn supposes would not have been contained in a world of bookes if they had been written or if God by some other meanes had preserv'd the knowledge of them had been as worthy to be believed and as necessary as those that are written But to shew you how much a more faith full keeper Records are then report those few that were written are preserved believed those infinitly more that were not written are all lost and vanished out of the memory of men And seeing God in his providence hath not thought fit to preserve the memory of them he hath freed us from the obligation of believing them for every obligation ceases when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholique Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few ages after Christ. So that if we consult the ancient Interpreters we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinall Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alleaged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tells us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist. to the Thess. yet were afterwards written and in other bookes of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist which was never written that he laies this iniunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholique Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the comming of Antichrist But what if they did not performe their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shall we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to salvation to be lost and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the
knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to doe that which you cannot doe your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what withholdeth Or doe you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can yee or dare you say this or this was this hindrance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnatioÌ„ are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot goe then vaunt your Church for the only Watchfull Faithfull Infallible keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Primitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodnesse of God who seeing that what was not written was in such danger to be lost took order that what was necessary should be written Saint Chrysostomes counsell therefore of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief we are willing to obey And if you can of any thing make it appear that it is Tradition we will seek no farther But this we say withall that we are perswaded you cannot make this appear in any thing but only the Canon of Scripture and that there is nothing now extant and to be known by us which can put in so good plea to be the unwritten word of God as the unquestioned Books of Canonicall Scripture to be the written word of God 47 You conclude this Parag. with a sentence of S. Austin's who saies The Church doth not approve nor dissemble nor doe these things which are against Faith or good life and from hence you conclude that it never hath done so nor ever can doe so But though the argumâ—â—â— hold in Logick à non posse ad non esse yet I never heard that it would hold back again à no nesse ad non posse The Church cannot doe this therefore it does it not followes with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall never doe it nor can never doe it this I believe will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same Ianuarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remaines that the things you enquire of must be of that third kind of things which are different in divers places Let every one therefore doe that which he findes done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why doe you not inferre from hence that no particular Church can bring up any Custome that is against faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former If a man say of the Church of England what S. Austine of the Church that she neither approves nor dissembles nor does any thing against faith or good manners would you collect presently that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible Furthermore it is observable out of this and the former Epistle that this Church which did not as S. Austine according to you thought approve or dissemble or doe any thing against faith or good life did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions and humane presumptions and suffer all places to be full of them and to be exacted as nay more severely then the commandements of God himselfe This S. Austine himselfe professeth in this very Epistle This saith he I doe infinitely grieve at that many most wholsome precepts of the divine Scripture are little regarded and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions that he is more grievously found fault with who during his octaves toucheth the earth with his naked foot then he that shall bury his soul in drunkennesse Of these he saies that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councells nor corroborated by the Custome of the Vniversall Church And though not against faith yet unprofitable burdens of Christian liberty which made the condition of the Iewes more tolerable then that of Christians And therefore he professes of them Approbare non possum I cannot approve them And ubi facult as tribuitur resecanda existimo I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power Yet so deeply were they rooted and spread so farre through the indiscreet devotion of the people alwaies more prone to superstition then true piety and through the connivence of the Governors who should have strangled them at their birth that himselfe though he grieved at them and could not allow them yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them multa hujusmodi propter nonnuâ—aruÌ„ vel sanctaruÌ„ vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare noâ— audeo Many of these things for fear of scandalizing many holy persons or provoking those that are turbulent I dare not freely dâ—sallow Nay the Catholique Church it selfe did see and dissemble and tolerate them for these are the things of which he presently saies after the Church of God and you will have him speak of the true Catholique Church placed between Chaffe Tares tolerates many things Which was directly against the command of the holy spirit given the Church by S. Paul To stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free and not to suffer her selfe to be brought in bondage to these servile burdens Our Saviour tels the Scribes and Pharises that in vain they worshipped God teaching for Doctrines mens Commandements For that laying aside the Commandments of God they held the Traditions of men as the washing of pots and cups and many other such like things Certainly that which S. Austine complaines of as the generall fault of Christians of his time was paralell to this Multa saith he quae in divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur This I suppose I may very well render in our Saviours words The commandements of God are laid aside and then tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia all things or all places are so full of so many presumptions and those exacted with such severity nay with Tyranny that he was more severely censur'd who in the time of his Octaves touched the earth with his naked feet then hee which drâ—wned and buried his soul in drink Certainly if this be not to teach for Doctrines mens Commandements I know not what is And therefore these superstitious Christians might be said to worship God in vain as well as Scribes and Phraises And yet great variety of superstitions of this kind were then already spread over the Church being different in divers places This is plain from these words
of S. Austin of them diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur and apparent because the stream of them was grown so violent that he durst not opopose it liberiùs improbare non audeâ— I dare not freely speak against them So that to say the Catholique Church tolerated all this and for fear of offence durst not abrogate or condemne it is to say if we judge rightly of it that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain Now how this tolerating of Vniversall superstition in the Church can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition with the accomplishment of that pretended prophecy of the Church I have set watchmen upon thy walls O Ierusalem which shall never hold their peace day nor night besides how these superstitions being thus noutished cherished and strengthened by the practise of the most and urged with great violence upon others as the commandements of God and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any might in time take such deepe roote and spread their branches so farre as to passe for universall Customes of the Church he that does not see sees nothing Especially considering the catching and contagious nature of this sinne and how fast ill weeds spread and how true and experimented that rule is of the Historian Exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt sed quamlibâ—t in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem Nay that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austins time prevailed so farre as to be Consâ—etudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and authority not only of an uniuersall Custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition 48 But you will say notwithstanding all this S. Austin here warrants us that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against faith or goodlife and so long you may rest securely upon it Yea but the same S. Austine tels us in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vain superstitions and those urg'd more severely then the Commandements of God And whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeal to our Saviours words before cited and to the consent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it rightly we shall finde that the Church is not truly said only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and farre the lesser tolerated and dissembled them in silence and a part a farre greater publiquely vowed and practis'd them and urg'd them upon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet doe so I desire you to inform me 49 But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies not this which is pretended of the Church viz. That she neither approues nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but onely of good men in the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen quae sunt contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c. The Church tolerates many things and yet what is against faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 50 Ad § 17. That Abraham begat Isaac is a point very far from being Fundamentall and yet I hope you will grant that Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of God may bee certain enough of the truth and certainty of it For what if they say that the Catholique Church and much more themselues may possibly erre in some unfundamentall points is it therefore consequent they can be certaine of none such What if a wiser man then I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence conceiue my selfe certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them And then for points Fundamentall to what purpose doe you say That we must first know what they be before we can be assured that wee cannot erre in understanding the Scripture when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot erre but only to a sufficient certainty that we doe not erre but rightly understand those things that are plain whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall That God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him That there is no salvation but by faith in Christ That by repentance and faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body These wee conceive both true because the Scripture saies so and Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell whereof our Saviour saies Qui non crediderit damnabitur All which we either learne from Scripture immediately or learne of those that learne it of Scripture so that neither Learned nor Vnlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture And therefore in imputing this to us you cannot excuse your selfe from having done us a palpable injury 51 Ad § 18. And I urge you as mainly as you urge D. Potter other Protestants that you tell us that all the Traditions and all the Definitions of the Church are FundameÌ„tal points we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such Traditions and Definitions without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of salvation For I hope erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusiue of salvation theÌ„ erring in yours And which is most lamentable insteed of giving us such a Catalogue you also fall to wrangle among your selues about the making of it Some of you as I haue said aboue holding somethings to be matters of Faith which others deny to be so 52 Ad § 19. I answ That these differences between Protestants concerning Errours damnable and not damnable Truths fundamentall and not fundamentall may be easily reconcil'd For either the Errour they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its own nature damnable As if by negligence in seeking the Truth by unwillingnesse to finde it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens ill opinion or any other worldly feare or any other worldly hope I betray my selfe to any error contrary to any divine revealed Truth that Errour may be justly stiled a sinne and consequently of it selfe to
but seldom qualifies them or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation Yet not so seldome but that out of it I could giue you an abstract of the Essentiall part of Christianity if it were necessary but I haue shewed it not so by confuting your reason pretended for the necessity of it at this time I haue no leasure to doe you curtesies that are so troublesome to my selfe Yet thus much I will promise that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church Proposals with one hand you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of what I conceiue Fundamentall with the other For as yet I see no such faire proceeding as you talke of nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours For as for the Catalogue which heâ—e you haue given us in saying You are obliged under pain of damnation to belieue whatsoever the Catholique visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God it is like a covey of one Patridg or a flock of one sheep or a Fleet compos'd of one ship or an Army of one man The Author of Charity mistaken demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely if this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouthes with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you haue not perform'd what you require For if to set down such a PropositioÌ„ wherein are compriz'd all points taught by us to be necessary to salvation will serue you insteed of a Catalogue you shall haue Catalogues enough As we are oblig'd to belieue all under pain of damnation which God commands us to belieue There 's one Catalogue We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue Gods word all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what they are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods word Then I beseech you doe us reason and giue us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposalls without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to if you receiue not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will giue you leaue to proclaim us Banckrupts 54 Besides this deceitfull generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we finde with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the clouds giue me leaue to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any other point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no And if any what they bee I would know what you esteem the Proposalls of the Catholike visible Church In particular whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging proposall Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Councell without the Popes confirmation be such an obliging proposall or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtfull who is Pope Whether the Decree of a generall Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a Proposall and whether he be an Heretique that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope be such a proposall Whether the Generall uncondemn'd practise of the Church for some ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any age agreeing in the affirmation of any doctrine not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a doctrine or practise to be Tradition or to bee the Doctrine or practise of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to belieue every Text of the vulgar Bible now authoriz'd by the Roman Church to bee the true translation of the Originalls of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived wheÌ„ the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholique visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and oportunity be not bound to endeavour to know explicitely the Proposalls of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not saue him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some doctrine of the Church not knowing it to be so and Actually belieues some damnable Heresie as that God has the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or Ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his Ghostly Father may not erre in telling him so and whether any man can be oblig'd under pain of damnation to belieue an Errour Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps ten or twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can haue that they neither erre nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans salvation as well as implicit faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you meane all that ever she propos'd or that only which she now proposeth and whether shee now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonicall Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and propos'd as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under paine of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. Iames and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonicall at least not to disbelieve it believe the contrary Lastly why it is not sufficient for any mans salvation to use the best meanes he can to inform his conscience and to follow the direction of it To all these demands when you haue given faire and ingenuous answers you shall heare further from me 55 Ad
see plainly that you haue departed from the Truth 57 Beyond all this I say that this which you say in wisdome we are to doe is not only unlawfull but if we will proceed according to reason impossible I meane to adhere to you in all things having no other ground for it but because you are as we will now suppose Infallible in some things that is in Fundamentalls For whether by skill in Architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow foundation I know not but sure I am in reason no conclusion can be larger then the Principles on which it is founded And therefore if I consider what I doe and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partiall my adherence upon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and Vniversall and Totall I am confident that should I meet with such a man amongst you as I am well assur'd there be many that would grant your Church infallible only in fundamentalls which what they are he knowes not and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things I say that I am confident that it may be demonstrated that such a man adheres to you with a fiduciall and certain assent in nothing To make this cleare because at the first hearing it may seem strange give me leave good Sir to suppose you the man and to propose to you a few questions and to give for you such answers to them as upon this ground you must of necessity give were you present with mee First supposing you hold your Church infallible in fundamentalls obnoxious to errour in other things and that you know not what points are fundamentall I demand C. Why doe you believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation K. because the Church hath taught it which is infallible C. What Infallible in all things or only in Fundamentalls K. in Fundamentals only C. Then in other points She may erre K. she may C. and doe you know what Points are Fundamentall what not K. No and therefore I believe her in all things least I should disbelieve her in fundamentalls C. How know you then whether this be a fundamentall Point or no K. I know not C. It may be then for ought you know an unfundamentall point K. yes it may be so C. And in these you said the Church may erre K. yes I did so C. Then possibly it may erre in this K. It may doe so C. Then what certainty have you that it does not erre in it K. None at all but upon this supposition that this is a fundamentall C. And this supposition you are uncertain of K. Yes I told you so before C. And therefore you can have no certainty of that which depends upon this uncertainty saving only a suppositive certainty if it be a fundamentall truth which is in plain English to say you are certain it is true if it be both true and neccessary Verily Sir if you have no better faith then this you are no Catholique K. Good words I pray I am so and God willing will be so C. You mean in outward profession and practise but in belief you are not no more then a Protestant is a Catholique For every Protestant yeelds such a kind of assent to all the proposalls of the Church for surely they believe them true if they be fundamentall truths And therefore you must either believe the Church Infallible in all her proposalls be they foundations or be they superstructions or else you must believe all Fundamentall which shee proposes or else you are no Catholique K. But I have been taught that seeing I believed the Church infallible in points necessary in wisdome I was to believe her in every thing C. That was a pretty plausible inducement to bring you hither but now you are here you must goe farther and believe her infallible in all things or else you were as good goe back again which will be a great disparagement to you and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our Part and even with your own the imputation of rashnesse and levitie You see I hope by this time that though a man did believe your Church infallible in Fundamentalls yet he has no reason to doe you the curtesy of believing all her proposalls nay if he be ignorant what these Fundamentalls are he has no certain ground to believe her upon her Authority in any thing And whereas you say it can be no imprudence to erre with the Church I say it may be very great imprudence if the question be Whether we should erre with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 58 But we are under pain of Damnation to believe and obey her in greater things and therefore cannot in wisdome suspect her credit in matters of lesse moment Ans. I have told you already that this is falsely to suppose that wee grant that in some certain points some certain Church is infallibly assisted and under pain of damnation to be obeyed whereas all that we say is this that in some place or other some Church there shall be which shall retain all necessary Truths Yet if your supposition were true I would not grant your conclusion but with this exception unlesse the matter were past suspicion and apparently certain that in these things I cannot believe God and believe the Church For then I hope you will grant that be the thing of never so little moment were if for instance but that S. Paul left his cloak at Troas yet I were not to gratify the Church so farre as for her sake to disbelieve what God himselfe has revealed 59 Whereas you say Since we are undoubtedly obliged to believe her in Fundamentalls and cannot know precisely what those fundamentalls be we cannot without hazard of our soules leave her in any point I ans First that this argument proceeds upon the same false ground with the former And then that I have told you formerly that you fear where no fear is And though we know not precisely just how much is Fundamentall yet we know that the Scripture containes all Fundamentalls and more too and therefore that in believing that we believe all Fundamentalls and more too And consequently in departing from you can be in no danger of departing from that which may prove a Fundamentall truth For we are well assured that certain Errors can never prove Fundamentall Truths 60 Whereas you adde That that visible Church which cannot erre in Fundamentall propounds all her definitions without distinction to be believed under Anathema's Ans. Again you begge the question supposing untruly that there is any that Visible Church I mean any Visible Church of one Denomination which cannot erre in points Fundamentall Secondly proposing definitions to be believed under Anathema's is no good argument that the Propounders conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrine they condemne is evidently damnable A plain proof hereof is this that particular Councells nay Particular
men have been very liberall of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible either by others or themselves If any man should now deny Christ to be the Saviour of the world or deny the Resurrection I should make no great scruple of Anathematizing his doctrine and yet am very farre from dreaming of Infallibility 61 And for the Visible Churches holding it a point necessary to Salvation that we believe she cannot erre I know no such tenet unlesse by the Church you mean the Roman Church which you have as much reason to doe as that petty King in Africk hath to think him-himself King of all the world And therefore your telling us if she speak true what danger is it not to believe her and if false that it is not dangerous to believe her Is somewhat like your Popes setting your Lawyers to dispute whether Constantines Donation were valid or no whereas the matter of fact was the farre greater question whether there were any such Donation or rather when without question there was none such That you may not seem to delude us in like manner make it appear that the visible Church doth hold so as you pretend and then whether it be true or false we will consider afterwards But for the present with this invisible tenet of the Visible Church wee will trouble our selves no farther 62 The effect of the next Argument is this I cannot without grievous sinne disobey the Church unlesse I know she commands those things which are not in her power to command and how farre this power extends none can better informe me then the Church Therefore I am to obey so farre as the Church requires my obedience I answer First that neither hath the Catholique Church but only a corrupt part of it declared her selfe nor required our obedience in the points contested among us This therefore is falsely and vainly supposed here by you being one of the greatest questions amongst us Then secondly that God can better informe us what are the limits of the Churches power then the Church her selfe that is then the Roman Clergy who being men subject to the same passions with other men why they should be thought the best Iudges in their own cause I doe not well understand But yet we oppose against them no humane decisive Iudges not any Sect or Person but only God and his Word And therefore it is in vain to say That in following her you shall be sooner excused then in following any Sect or Man applying Scriptures against her Doctrine In as much as we never went about to arrogate to our selves that infallibility or absolute Authority which we take away from you But if you would haue spoken to the purpose you should haue said that in following her you should sooner haue been excusd then in cleaving to the Scripture and to God himselfe 63 Whereas you say The fearfull examples of innumerable persons who for saking the Church upon pretence of her errours have failed even in fundamentall points ought to deterre all Christians from opposing her in any one doctrine or practise This is just as if you should say divers men have fallen into Scylla with going too farre from Charybdis be sure therefore ye keep close to Charybdis divers leaving Prodigality have fallen into covetousnesse therefore be you constant to prodigality Many have fallen from worshipping God perversely and foolishly not to worship him at all from worshipping many Gods to worshipping none this therefore ought to deterre men from leaving superstition or Idolatry for fear of falling into Atheisme and Impiety This is your counsell and Sophistry but God saies clean contrary Take heed you swerve not either to the right hand or to the left you must not doe evill that good may come thereon therefore neither that you may avoid a greater evill you must not be obstinate in a certain error for fear of an uncertain What if some forsaking the Church of Rome have forsaken Fundamentall truths Was this because they forsook the Church of Rome No sure this is causa pro non causa for else all that have forsaken that Church should have done so which we say they have not But because they went too farre from her the golden mean the narrow way is hard to be found and hard to be kept hard but not impossible hard but yet you must not please your selfe out of it though you erre on the right hand though you offend on the milder part for this is the only way that leads to life and few there be that find it It is true if we said there were no danger in being of the Roman Church and there were danger in leaving it it were madnesse to perswade any man to leave it But we protest and proclaime the contrary and that we have very little hope of their Salvation who either out of negligence in seeking the truth or unwillingnesse to find it live and dye in the errors and impieties of that Church and therefore cannot but conceive those feares to be most foolish and ridiculous which perswade men to be constant in one way to hell least happily if they leave it they should fall into another 64 But Not only others but even Protestants themselves whose example ought most to move us pretending to reforme the Church are come to affirme that she perished for many ages which D. Potter cannot deny to be a fundamentall errour against the Article of the Creed I believe the Catholique Church seeing he affirmes the Donatists erred Fundamentally in confining it to Africa To this I Answer First that the errour of the Donatists was not that they held it possible that some or many or most parts of Christendome might fall away from Christianity and that the Church may loose much of her amplitude and be contracted to a narrow compasse in comparison of her former extent which is prov'd not only possible but certain by irrefragable experience For who knowes not that Gentilisme and Mahumetisme mans wickednesse deserving it and Gods providence permitting it have prevail'd to the utter extirpation of Christianity upon farre the greater part of the world And S. Austin when he was out of the heat of Disputation confesses the Militant Church to be like the Moon sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing This therefore was no errour in the Donatists that they held it possible that the Church from a larger extent might be contracted to a lesser nor that they held it possible to be reduced to Africa For why not to Africk then as well as within these few ages you pretend it was to Europe But their error was that they held de facto this was done when they had no just ground or reason to doe so and so upon a vain pretence which they could not justify seperated themselves from the communion of all other parts of the Church and that they required it as a necessary condition to make a man a member of the Church that he should be of
their communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawfull to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicisme in the very same nature with their Errours who required Circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation For whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men then God requires of them he it is that is properly an Enemie of the Churches Vniversality by hindering either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it which were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions in probability would haue made thē members of it And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of Salvation they haue not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholiques believe nothing at all as not believe all which they impose upon them Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion as be out of their Communion or be in any other whether they be not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither haue named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendour and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a fundamentall Errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly bee driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65 But to accuse the Church of any Errour in faith is to say she lost all faith For this is the Doctrine of Catholique Divines that one Errour in faith destroyes faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Errour in faith is not to say she lost all faith For this is not the doctrine of Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may haue true faith of other Articles And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken 66 Ad § 21. D. Potter saies We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things and from hence you conclude Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing And this Argument you call a Demonstration But a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration D. Potter sayes not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practise of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he saies even the Catholique may erre and every man may lawfully depart from Errour He only sayes you may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you inferre a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Iust as if you should argue thus You may not leaue your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he saies of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same hee extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why doe you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any Errour and call this a Demonstration too For as he saies p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe So p. 76. He tells you that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body for sakes the whole So that what he saies of the one hee saies of the other and tells you that neither Vniversall nor Particular Church so long as they continue so may bee forsaken hee meanes Absolutely no more then Christ himselfe may be forsaken absolutely For the Church is the body of Christ and whosoever forsakes either the Body or his coherence to any one part of it must forsake his subordination and relation to the Head Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church or any Christian must forsake Christ himselfe 67 But then he tells you plainly in the same place That it may be lawfull and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrines and Practises And this he would haue said even of the Catholike Church if there had been occasion but there was none For there he was to declare and justifie our departure not from the Catholique Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confesse his doctrine to be that even the Catholique church may erre in points not Fundamentall which you doe not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himselfe And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words as if he had said We may not forsake the Church in any thing no more then Christ himselfe but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more then Christ himselfe And thus we see sometimes a mountain may travail and the production may be a mouse 68 Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himselfe or else must grant the Church infallible Because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre Answer This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intricate nothing And to make it appeare so let us suppose in contradiction to your supposition either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things but that the Roman erres in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility a man may truly say unlesse I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon D. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique 69 In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other doth God say cleerly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall bee ever
the infallible guide of Faith You will confesse I presume he doth not and will pretend it was not necessary Yet if the King should tell us the Lord Keeper should judge such and such causes but should either not tell us at all or tell us but doubtfully who should be Lord Keeper should we be any thing the neerer for him to an end of contentions Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is increase contentions rather then end them Iust so it would have been if God had appointed a Church tobe judge of Controversies and had not told us which was that Church Seeing therefore God does nothing in vain and seeing it had been in vain to appoint a judge of Controversies and not to tell us plainly who it is and seeing lastly he hath not told us plainly no not at all who it is is it not evident he hath appointed none Ob. But you will say perhaps if it be granted once that some Church of one denomination is the infallible guide of faith it will be no difficult thing to prove that yours is the Church seeing no other Church pretends to be so Ans. Yes the Primitive and the Apostolique Church pretends to be so That assures us that the spirit was promised and given to them to lead them into all saving truth that they might lead others Ob. But that Church is not now in the world and how then can it pretend to be the guide of Faith Ans. It is now in the world sufficiently to be our guide not by the Persons of those men that were members of it but by their Writings which doe plainly teach us what truth they were led into and so lead us into the same truth Ob. But these writings were the writings of some particular men and not of the Church of those times how then doth that Church guide us by these writings Now these places shew that a Church is to be our guide therefore they cannot be so avoided Ans. If you regard the conception and production of these writings they were the writings of particular men But if you regard the Reception and approbation of them they may be well called the writings of the Church as having the attestation of the Church to have been written by those that were inspired and directed by God As a statute though pen'd by some one man yet being ratified by the Parliament is called the Act not of that man but of the Parliament Ob. But the words seem cleerly enough to prove that the Church the Present Church of every Age is Vniversally infallible Ans. For my part I know I am as willing and desirous that the Bishop or Church of Rome should be infallible provided I might know it as they are to be so esteemed But he that would not be deceived must take heed that he take not his desire that a thing should be so for a reason that it is so For if you look upon Scripture through such spectacles as these they will appeare to you of what colour pleases your fancies best and will seem to say not what they doe say but what you would have them As some say the Manna wherewith the Israelites were fed in the Wildernesse had in every mans mouth that very tast which was most agreeable to his palate For my part I professe I have considered them a thousand times and have looked upon them as they say on both sides and yet to me they seeme to say no such matter 70 Not the First For the Church may erre and yet the gates of Hell not prevail against her It may erre and yet continue still a true Church and bring forth Children unto God and send soules to Heaven And therefore this can doe you no service without the plain begging of the point of Question viz. That every errour is one of the gates of Hell Which we absolutely deny and therefore you are not to suppose but to prove it Neither is our denyall without reason For seeing you doe and must grant that a particular Church may hold some errour and yet be still a true member of the Church why may not the Vniversall Church hold the same errour and yet remain the true Vniversall 71 Not the Second or Third For the spirit of Truth may be with a Man or a Church for ever and teach him all Truth And yet he may fall into some errour if this all be not simply all but all of some kind which you confesse to be so unquestioned and certain that you are offended with D. Potter for offering to prove it Secondly he may fall into some errour even contrary to the truth which is taught him if it be taught him only sufficiently and not irresistibly so that he may learne it if he will not so that he must and shall whether he will or no. Now who can ascertain me that the spirits teaching is not of this nature Or how can you possibly reconcile it with your doctrine of free-will in believing if it be not of this nature Besides the word in the Originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to be a guide and director only not to compell or necessitate Who knowes not that a guide may set you in the right way and you may either negligently mistake or willingly leave it And to what purpose doth God complain so often and so earnestly of some that had eyes to see and would not see that stopped their eares and closed their eyes least they should hear and see Of others that would not understand least they should doe good that the light shined and the darknesse comprehended it not That he came unto his own and his own received him not That light came into the world and men loved darknesse more then light To what purpose should he wonder so few believed his report and that to so few his arme was revealed And that when he comes he should find no faith upon earth If his outward teaching were not of this nature that it might be followed and might be resisted And if it be then God may teach and the Church not learn God may lead and the Church be refractory and not follow And indeed who can doubt that hath not his eyes vailed with prejudice that God hath taught the Church of Rome plain enough in the Ep. to the Corinthians that all things in the Church are to be done for edification and that in any publique Prayers or Thanks-givings or Hymnes or Lessons of instruction to use a language which the assistants generally understand not is not for edification Though the Church of Rome will not learne this for feare of confessing an errour and so overthrowing her Authority yet the time will come when it shall appeare that not only by Scripture they were taught this sufficiently and commanded to believe but by reason and common sense And so for the Communion in both kindes who can deny but they are taught it by our Saviour Iohn
Paul and applied by him to our Saviour He hath put all things under his feet mentions no exception yet S. Paul tels us not only that it is true or certain but it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under him 84 But your interpretation is better then D. Potters because it is literall I answer His is Literall as well as yours and you are mistaken if you think a restrained sense may not be a literall sense for to Restrained Literall is not opposed but unlimited or absolute and to Literall is not oppos'd Restrained but Figuratiue 85 Whereas you say D. Potters Brethren reiecting his limitation restrain the mentioned Texts to the Apostles implying hereby a contrariety between them and him I answer So does D. Potter restrain all of them which he speaks of in the pages by you quoted to the Apostles in the direct and primary sense of the words Though he tels you there the words in a more restrained sense are true being understood of the Church Vniversall 86 As for your pretence That to finde the meaning of those places you conferre divers Texts you consult Originals you examin Translations and use all the meanes by Protestants appointed I haue told you before that all this is vain and hypocriticall if as your manner your doctrine is you giue not your selfe liberty of judgement in the use of these meanes if you make not your selves Iudges of but only Advocats for the doctrine of your Church refusing to see what these meanes shew you if it any way make against the doctrine of your Church though it be as cleare as the light at noone Remoue prejudice Even the ballance and hold it even make it indifferent to you which way you goe to heaven so you goe the true which Religion be true so you be of it then use the meanes and pray for Gods assistance and as sure as God is true you shall be lead into all necessary Truth 87 Whereas you say you neither doe nor haue any possible meanes to agree as long as you are left to your selues The first is very true That while you differ you doe not agree But for the second That you haue no possible means of agreement as long as you are left to your selues i. e. to your own reasons and judgement this sure is very false neither doe you offer any proofe of it unlesse you intended this that you doe not agree for a proof that you cannot which sure is no good consequence not halfe so good as this which I oppose against it D. Potter and I by the use of these meanes by you mentioned doe agree concerning the sense of these places therefore there is a possible meanes of agreement and therefore you also if you would use the same meanes with the same minds might agree so farre as it is necessary and it is not necessary that you should agree further Or if there bee no possible meanes to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst wee are left to our selves then sure it is impossible that we should agree in your sense of them which was That the Church is universally infallible For if it were possible for us to agree in this sense of them then it were possible for us to agree And why then said you of the selfe same Texts but in the page next before These words seem cleerly enough to proue that the Church is Vniversally infallible A strange forgetfulnesse that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seem cleerly enough to proue such a conclusion true yet that three indifferent men all presum'd to be lovers of Truth and industrious searchers of it should haue no possible meanes while they follow their own reason to agree in the Truth of this Conclusion 88 Whereas you say that it were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no certaine infallible meanes to decide both this and all other differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion I desire you to take heed you commit not an impiety in making more impieties then Gods Commandements make Certainly God is no way oblig'd either by his promise or his Loue to giue us all things that we may imagine would be convenient for us as formerly I haue proved at large It is sufficient that he denies us nothing necessary to Salvation Deus non deficit in necessariis nec redundat in superfluis So D. Stapleton But that the ending of all Controversies or having a certain meanes of ending them is necessary to Salvation that you haue often said and suppos'd but never proved though it be the main pillar of your whole discourse So little care you take how slight your Foundations are so your building make a faire shew And as little care how you commit those faults your selfe which you condemne in others For you here charge them with great impiety who imagine that God the lover of Soules hath left no infallible meanes to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter why the Questions between the Iesuits Dominicans remain undetermined You returne him this crosse interrogatory Who hath assured you that the point wherein these learned men differ is a revealed Truth or capable of definition or is not rather by plain Scripture indeterminable or by any Rule of faith So then when you say it were great impiety to imagine that God hath not left infallible meanes to decide all differences I may answer It seemes you doe not believe your selfe For in this controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be you seem to be doubtfull whether there be any meanes to determin it On the other side when you aske D. Potter who assured him that there it any meanes to determine this Controversie I answer for him that you have in calling it a great impiety to imagine that there is not some infallible meanes to decide this and all other differences arising about the Interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion For what trick you can devise to shew that this difference between the Dominicans and Iesuits which includes a difference about the sense of many Texts of Scripture many other matters of moment was not included under this and all other differences I cannot imagine Yet if you can finde out any thus much at least we shall gain by it that generall speeches are not alwaies to be understood generally but sometimes with exceptions and limitations 89 But if there be any infallible meanes to decide all differences I beseech you name them You say it is to consult and heare Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility But suppose the difference be as here it is whether your Church be infalliâ—le what shall decide that If you would say as you should dot Scripture and
be particularly known I mean known to be divine Revelations and distinctly to be believed And of this latter sort of speculative divine Verities D. Potter affirmed that the Apostles Creed was a sufficient summary yet he affirmed it not as his own opinion but as the doctrine of the ancient Fathers and your own Doctors And besides he affirmed it not as absolutely certain but very probable 5 In brief all that he saies is this It is very probable that according to the judgement of the Roman Doctors and the Ancient Fathers the Apostles Creed is to be esteemed a sufficient summary of all those doctrines which being meerely Credenda and not Agenda all men are ordinarily under pain of Damnation bound particularly to believe 6 Now this assertion you say is neither pertinent to the question in hand nor in it selfe true Your Reasons to prove it impertinent put into forme and divested of impertinencies are these 1. Because the question was not what points were necessary to be explicitly believed but what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposall And therefore to give a Catalogue of points necessary to be explicitly believed is impertinent 7 Secondly because errours may be damnable though the contrary truths be not of themselves fundamentall as that Pontius Pilate was our Saviours Iudge is not in it selfe a Fundamentall truth â—et to believe the contrary were a damnable errour And therefore to give a Catalogue of Truths in themselves fundamentall is no pertinent satisfaction to this demand what errors are damnable 8 Thirdly because if the Church be not Vniversally infallible wee cannot ground any certainty upon the Creed which we must receive upon the Credit of the Church and if the Church be Vniversally infallible it is damnable to oppose her declaration in any thing though not contained in the Creed 9 Fourthly Because not to believe the Articles of the Creed in the true sense is damnable therefore it is frivolous to say the Creed containes all Fundamentalls without specifying in what sense the Articles of it are Fundamentall 10 Fiftly because the Apostles Creed as D. Potter himselfe confesses was not a sufficient Catalogue till it was explained by the first Councell nor then untill it was declared in the second c. by occasion of emergent Heresies Therefore now also as new Heresies may arise it will need particular explanation and so is not yet nor ever will be a compleat Catalogue of Fundamentalls 11 Now to the first of these objections I say Frist that your distinction between points necessary to be believed and necessary not to be disbelieved is more subtill then sound a distinction without a difference There being no point necessary to be believed which is not necessary not to be disbelieved Nor no point to any man at any time in any circumstances necessary not to be disbelieved but it is to the same man at the same time in the same circumstances necessary to be believed Yet that which I believe you would have said I acknowledge true that many points which are not necessary to be believed absolutely are yet necessary to be believed upon a supposition that they are known to be revealed by God that is become then necessary to be believed when they are known to be Divine Revelations But then I must needs say you doe very strangely in saying that the question was what points might lawfully be disbelieved after sufficient Proposition that they are divine Revelations You affirme that none may and so does D. Potter and with him all Protestants and all Christians And how then is this the question Who ever said or thought that of Divine Revelations known to be so some might safely and lawfully be rejected and disbelieved under pretence that they are not Fundamentall Which of us ever taught that it was not damnable either to deny or so much as doubt of the Truth of any thing whereof we either know or believe that God hath revealed it What Protestant ever taught that it was not damnable either to give God the lye or to call his Veracity into question Yet you say The demand of Charity mistaken was it was most reasonable that a list of FundameÌ„talls should be given the denyall whereof destroies Salvation whereas the deniall of other points may stand with Salvation although both kinds be equally proposed as revealed by God 12 Let the Reader peruse Charity Mistaken he shall find that this qualification although both kinds of points be equally proposed as revealed by God is your addition and no part of the demand And if it had it had been most unreasonable seeing he and you know well enough that though we doe not presently without examination fall down and worship all your Churches proposals as divine Revelations yet we make no such distinction of known divine Revelations as if some only of them were necessary to be believed and the rest might safely be rejected So that to demand a particular minute Catalogue of all points that may not be disbelieved after sufficient Proposition is indeed to demaund a Catalogue of all points that are or may be in as much as none may be disbelieved after sufficient Proposition that it is a divine Revelation At least it is to desire us First to transcribe into this catalogue every Text of the whole Bible Secondly to set down distinctly those innumerous millions of negative and positive consequences which may be evidently deduced from it For these we say God hath revealed And indeed you are not ashamed in plain tearmes to require this of us For having first told us that the demand was what points were necessary not to be disbelieved after sufficient proposition that they are Divine Truths you come to say Certainly the Creed containes not all these And this you prove by asking how many Truths are thero in holy Scripture not contained in the Creed which we are not bound to know and believe but are bound under pain of damnation not to reject as soon as we come to know that they are found in holy Scripture So that in requiring a particular Catalogue of all points not to be disbelieved after sufficient Proposall you require us to set you down all points contained in Scripture or evidently deducible from it And yet this you are pleas'd to call a reasonable nay a most reasonable Demand whereas having ingaged your selfe to give a Catalogue of your Fundamentalls you conceive your ingagement very well satisfyed by saying all is Fundamentall which the Church proposes without going about to give us an endlesse Inventory of her Proposalls And therefore from us in stead of a perfect particular of Divine Revelations of all sorts of which with a lesse hyperbole then S. Iohn useth we might say If they were to be written the world would not hold the books that must be written me thinkes you should accept of this generall All Divine Revelations are true and to be believed 13 The very truth is
hath so kindly offered to lead you by the hand to the observation of them in these words To consider of your Coinopista or communitèr Credenda Articles as you call them universally believed of all these severall Professions of Cristianity which have any large spread in the World These Articles for example may be the Vnity of the Godhead the Trinity of persons the immortality of the Soule c. Where you see that your friend whom you so much magnify hath plainly confessed that notwithstanding the Bishops words the denyall of the doctrine of the Trinity may exclude Salvation and therefore in approving and applauding his Answer to the Bishops Sermon you have unawares allowed this Answer of mine to your own greatest objection 46 Now for the foule contradiction which you say the Doctor might easily haue espied in the Bishops saying he desires your pardon for his oversight for Paulus Veridicus his sake who though he set him selfe to finde faults with the Bishops Sermon yet it seemes this hee could not finde or else questionlesse wee should haue heard of it from him And therefore if D. Potter being the Bishops friend haue not been more sharp-sighted then his enemies this he hopes to indifferent judges will seem no unpardonable offence Yet this I say not as if there were any contradiction at all much lesse any foul contradiction in the Bishops words but as Antipherons picture which he thought he saw in the ayre before him was not in the ayre but in his disturb'd phansie◠so all the contradiction which here you descant upon is not indeed in the Bishops saying but in your imagination For wherein I pray lies this foule contradiction In supposing say you a man may believe all Truths necessary to salvation and yet superinduce a damnable Heresie I answer It is not certain that his words doe suppose this neither if they doe does he contradict himselfe I say it is not certain that his words import any such matter For ordinarily men use to speake and write so as here he does when they intend not to limit or restrain but only to repeat and presse illustrate what they haue said before And I wonder why with your Eagles eyes you did not espy another foule contradiction in his words as well as this and say that he supposes a man may walk according to the rule of holy obedience and yet vitiate his holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation Certainly a lewd conversation is altogether as contradictious to holy obedience as a damnable heresie to necessary truth What then was the reason that you espied not this foule contradiction in his words as well as that Was it because according to the spirit and Genius of your Church your zeal is greater to that which you conceive true doctrine then holy obedience and think simple errour a more capitall crime then sins committed against knowledge and conscience Or was it because your Reason told you that herein he meant onely to repeat and not to limit what he said before And why then had you not so much candour to conceave that he might haue the same meaning in the former part of the disiunction and intend no more but this Whosoever walks according to this rule of believing all necessary Truths and holy obedience neither poisoning his faith of those Truths which he holds with the mixture of any damnable Heresie nor vitiating it with a wicked life Peace shall be upon him In which words what man of any ingenuity will not presently perceive that the words within the parenthesis are only a repetition of and no exception from those that are without S. Athanasius in his Creed tells us The Catholique Faith is this that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance and why now doe you not tell him that he contradicts himselfe and supposes that we may worship a Trinity of Persons and one God in substance and yet confound the Persons or divide the substance which yet is impossible because Three remaining Three cannot be confounded and One remaining One cannot be divided If a man should say unto you he that keeps all the Commandements of God committing no sinne either against the loue of God or the loue of his neighbour is a perfect man Or thus he that will liue in constant health had need be exact in his diet neither eating too much nor too little Or thus hee that will come to London must goe on straight forward in such a way and neither turn to the right hand or to the left I verily belieue you would not finde any contradiction in his words but confesse them as coherent and consonant as any in your Book And certainly if you would look upon this saying of the Bishop with any indifference you would easily perceive it to be of the very same kinde capable of the very same construction And therefore one of the grounds of your accusation is uncertain Neither can you assure us that the Bishop supposes any such matter as you pretend Neither if he did suppose this as perhaps he did were this to contradict himselfe For though there can be no damnable Heresie unlesse it contradict some necessary Truth yet there is no contradiction but the same man may at once belieue this Heresie and this Truth because there is no contradiction that the same man at the same time should believe contradictions For first whatsoever a man believes true that he may and must believe But there haue been some who have believed and taught that contradictions might be true against whom Aristotle disputes in the third of his Metaphysicks Therefore it is not impossible that a man may belieue Contradictions Secondly they which believe there is no certainty in Reason must belieue that contradictions may be true For otherwise there will be certainty in this Reason This contradicts Truth therefore it is false But there be now divers in the world who believe there is no certainty in reason and whether you be of their minde or no I desire to be inform'd Therefore there be divers in the world who believe contradictions may be true Thirdly They which doe captivate their understandings to the beliefe of those things which to their understanding seem irreconcileable contradictions may as well belieue reall contradictions For the difficulty of believing arises not from their being repugnant but from their seeming to be so But you doe captivate your understandings to the beliefe of those things which seem to your understandings irreconcileable contradictions Therefore it is as possible and easie for you to believe those that indeed are so Fourthly some men may be confuted in their errours and perswaded out of them but no mans errour can be confuted who together with his errour doth not believe and grant some true principle that contradicts his Errour for nothing can bee proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men
because we stand only upon Fundamentall Articles which cannot make up the whole fabrick of the faith no more then the foundation of a house alone can be a house 52 But I hope Sir you will not be difficult in granting that that is a house which hath all the necessary parts belonging to a house Now by Fundamentall Articles we mean all those which are necesry And you your selfe in the very leafe after this take notice that D. Potter does so Where to this Question How shall I know in particular which points be and which be not Fundamentall You scurrilously bring him in making this ridiculous answer Read my Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Charity Mistaken c. There you shall find that Fundamentall doctrines are such Catholique Verities as principally and essentially pertain to the faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessary in ordinary course to be distinctly believed by every Christian that will be saved All which wordes he us'd not to tell you what points be fundamentall as you dishonestly impose upon him but to explain what he meant by the word Fundamentall May it please you therefore now at last to take notice that by Fundamentall we mean all and only that which is necessary and then I hope you will grant that we may safely expect salvation in a Church which hath all things fundamentall to Salvation Vnlesse you will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary 53 This long discourse so full of un-ingenious dealing with your adversary perhaps would have done reasonably in a Faire or a Comedy I doubt not but you have made your selfe your courteous Readers good sport with it But if D. Potter or I had been by when you wrote it we should have stopt your carere at the first starting have put you in mind of these old Schoole Proverbs Exfalso supposito sequitur quodlibet and Vno absurdo dato seqâ—untur mille For whereas you suppose first that to a man desirous to save his soul and requiring whose direction he might rely upon the Doctors answer would be Vpon the truly Catholique Church I suppose upon better reason because I know his mind that he would advise him to call no man Master on Earth but according to Christs command to rely upon the direction of God himselfe If he should enquire where he should find this direction He would answer him In his word contained in Scripture If he should enquire what assurance he might have that the Scripture is the word of God He would answer him that the doctrine it selfe is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God nec vox hominem sonat and that they which wrote and delivered it confirmed it to be the word of God by doing such works as could not be done but by power from God himselfe For assurance of the Truth hereof he would advise him to rely upon that which all wise men in all matters of belief rely upon and that is the Consent of Ancient Records and Vniversall Tradition And that he might not instruct him as partiall in this advise he might farther tell him that a gentleman that would be namelesse that has written a book against him called Charity maintained by Catholiques though in many things he differ from him yet agrees with him in this that Tradition is such a principle as may be rested in and which requires no other proof As indeed no wise man doubts but there was such a man as Iulius Caesar or Cicero that there are such Citties as Rome or Constantinople though he have no other assurance for the one or the other but only the speech of people This tradition therefore he would counsell him to rely upon and to believe that the book which we call Scripture was confirmed abundantly by the workes of God to be the word of God Believing it the word of God he must of necessity believe it true and if he believe it true he must believe it containes all necessary directions unto eternall happinesse because it affirmes it selfe to doe so Nay he might tell him that so farre is the whole book from wanting any necessary direction to his eternall Salvation that one only Author that hath writ but two little bookes of it S. Luke by name in the begining of his Gospell and in the begining of his Story shewes plainly that he alone hath written at least so much as is necessary And what they wrote they wrote by Gods direction for the direction of the world not only for the Learned but for all that would doe their true endeavour to know the will of God and to doe it therefore you cannot but conceive that writing to all and for all they wrote so as that in things necessary they might be understood by all Besides that here he should finde that God himselfe has engaged himselfe by promise that if he would loue him and keep his Commandements and pray earnestly for his spirit and bee willing to be directed by it he should undoubtedly receiue it even the Spirit of Truth which shall lead him into all truth that is certainly into all necessary Truths and suffer him to fall into no pernicious errour The summe of his whole direction to him briefly would be this Believe the Scripture to be the word of God use your true endeavour to finde the true sense of it and to liue according to it and then you may rest securely that you are in the true way to eternall happinesse This is the substance of that Answer which the Doctor would make to any man in this case and this is a way so plain that fooles unlesse they will cannot erre from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth and not being free from errour but endeavoring to know the truth and obey it and endeavouring to be free from errour is by this way made the onely condition of salvation As for your supposition That he would advise such a man to rely upon the Catholique Church for the finding out the doctrine of Christ hee utterly disclaimes it and truly very justly There being no certaine way to know that any company is a true Church but only by their professing the true doctrine of Christ. And therefore as it is impossible I should know such a company of Philosophers are Peripateticks or Stoicks unlesse I first know what was the doctrine of the Peripateticks and Stoicks so is it impossible that I should certainly know any company to be the Church of Christ before I know what is the doctrine of Christ the Profession whereof constitutes the visible Church the Beliefe and Obedience the invisible And therefore whereas you would have him be directed by the Catholique Church to the doctrine of Christ the contrary rather is most certaine and necessary that by the foreknowledge of the doctrine of Christ he must be directed to a certaine assurance which is if he meane not to choose at
us of innumerable grosse damnable Heresies that have been are and may be whose contrary Truths are neither explicitly nor by consequence comprehended in this Creed So that no man by the beleife of this Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefes that it is more likely to ensnare thē into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of faith which is apt as experience shewes to mis-guide men into this pernitious errour That believing the Creed they believe all necessary points of faith whereas indeed they doe not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better then that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed propos'd by me I believe the Roman Church to be infallible if your doctrine be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrine be true would without controversie be better then the latter 80 But say you by this kind of arguing one might inferre quite contrary If the Apostles Creed contain all points necessary to Salvation what need have wee of any Church to teach us And consequently what need of the Article of the Church To which I answer that having compared your inference and D. Potter together I cannot discover any shadow of resemblance between them nor any shew of Reason why the perfection of the Apostles Creed should exclude a necessity of some body to deliver it Much lesse why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the beliefe of a part of it unnecessary As well for ought I understand you might avouch this inference to be as good as D. Potters The Apostles Creed contains all things necessary therefore there is no need to believe in God Neither does it follow so well as D. Potters argument followes That if the Apostles Creed containes all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechismes wherein are added divers other Particulars are superfluous For these other Particulars may be the duties of obedience they may be profitable points of Doctrine they may be good expositions of the Apostles Creed and so not superfluous and yet for all this the Creed may still contain all points of belief that are simply necessary These therefore are poor consequences but no more like D. Potters then an apple is like an oister 81 But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it at length you promise us newes and pretend to grant it But what is that which you mean to grant That the Apostles did put no Article in their Creed but only that of the Church Or that if they had done so they had done better then now they have done This is D. Potters inference out of your Doctrine and truly if you should grant this this were newes indeed Yes say you I will grant it but only thus farre that Christ hath referred us only to his Church Yea but this is clean another thing and no newes at all that you should grant that which you would fain have granted to you So that your dealing with us is just as if a man should profer me a curtesy and pretend that he would oblige himselfe by a note under his hand to give me twenty pound and in stead of it write that I owe him forty and desire me to subscribe to it and be thankfull Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberall 82 You tell us afterward but how it comes in I know not that it were a childish argument The Creed containes not all things necessary Ergo It is not Profitable Or the Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient meanes Ergo She must teach us without meanes These indeed are childish arguments but for ought I see you alone are the father of them for in D. Potters book I can neither meet with them nor any like them He indeed tels you that if by an impossible supposition your Doctrine were true another and a farre shorter Creed would have been more expedient even this alone I believe the Roman Church to be infallible But why you should conclude he makes this Creed unprofitable because he saies another that might be conceived upon this false supposition would be more profitable or that he laies a necessity upon the Church of teaching without meanes or of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught these things are so subtill that I cannot apprehend them To my understanding by those words And sent us to the Church for all the rest he does rather manifestly imply that the rest might be very well not only profitable but necessary and that the Church was to teach this by Creeds or Catechismes or Councells or any other meanes which she should make choice of for being Infallible she could not choose amisse 83 Whereas therefore you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must haue taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other meanes This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which followes that the Apostles if your doctrine be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we haue if insteed thereof they had commanded in plain termes that for mens perpetuall direction in the faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to haue taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion For then the Church not having learnt it of them could not haue taught it us This therefore I doe not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they haue written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrine which they did preach and done all otherthings as they have done besides the composing their Symbole◠I say if your doctrine were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficiall to the Church of Christ if they had never compos'd their Symbole which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple beliefe and no distinctiue mark as a Symbole should be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so But insteed thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would haue been certainly effectuall for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be forever infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of faith 84 Whereas you say If we will belieue we haue all in the Creed whē we haue not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell
you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether â—oever they lead me Now I say they haue led me into this perswasion because they haue given me great reason to belieue it and none to the contrary The reason they haue given me to belieue it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselues in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might haue a forme by which for matter of faith they might professe themselues Catholiques So Putean out of Th. Aquinas That the faithfull might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitely So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Cardinall Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectuall unlesse it contain at least all points of simple beliefe which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitely known by all men So that if it be fault in me to belieue this it must be my fault to belieue the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot doe if I belieue not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore sayes of God himselfe I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an errour which I belieue it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspition That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I haue which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to enduce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither doe I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I haue more evident grounds then this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths bee granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church dependent only in respect of us upon universall Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of faith That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations and let our superstructions bee consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. That Luther Calvin their Associates all who began or continue the separation from the externall Communion of the Roman Church are guilty of the proper and formall sinne of Schisme THE Searcher of all Hearts is witnesse with how unwilling minds we Catholiques are drawen to fasten the denomination of Schismatiques or Heretiques on them for whose soules if they imployed their best blood they judge that it could not be better spent If we rejoyce that they are contistated at such titles our joy riseth not from their trouble or griefe but as that of the Apostles did from the fountaine of Charity because they are contâ—â—stated to repentance that so after unpartiall examination they finding themselves to be what we say may by Gods holy grace begin to dislike what themselves are For our part we must remember that our obligation is to keep within the meane betwixt uncharitable bitternesse and pernicious flattery not yeelding to worldly respects nor offending Christian Modesty but uttering the substance of truth in so Charitable manner that not so much we as Truth and Charity may seeme to speak according to the wholesome advise of S. Gregory Nazianzen in these divine words We doe not affect peace with preiudice of the true doctrine that so we may get a name of being gentle and mild and yet we seek to conserue peace fighting in a lawfull manner and containing our selves within our compasse and the rule of Spirit And of these things my iudgment is and for my part I prescribe the same law to all that deale with soules and treat of true doctrine that neither they exasperate meâ—s minds by harshnesse nor make them haughty or insolent by submission but that in the cause of faith they behave themselves prudently and advisedly and doe not in either of these things exceed the meane With whom aÌ„greeth S. Leo saying It behoveth us in such causes to be most carefull that without noise of contentions both Charity be conserved and Truth maintained 2. For better Methode we will handle these points in order First we will set downe the nature and essence or as I may call it the Quality of Schisme In the second place the greatnesse and grievousnesse or so to tearme it the Quantity thereof For the Nature or Quality will tell us who may without injury be iudged Schismatiques and by the greatnesse or quantity such as finde themselves guilty thereof will remaine acquainted with the true state of their soule and and whether they may conceive any hope of salvation or no. And because Schisme will be found to be a division from the Church which could not happen unlesse there were alwaies a visible Church we will Thirdly prove or rather take it as a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath beene such a Visible Congregation of Faithfull People Fourthly we will demonstrate that Luther Calvin and the rest did separate themselves from the Communion of that alwaies visible Church of Christ and therefore were guilty of Schisme And fifthly we will make it evident that the visible true Church of Christ out of which Luther and his followers departed was no other but the Roman Church and consequently that both they and all others who persist in the same division are Schismatiques by reason of their separation from the Church of Rome 3 For the first point touching the Nature or Quality of Schisme As the naturall perfection of man consists in his being the Image of God his Creator by the powers of his soule so his supernaturall perfection is placed in fimilitude with God as his last End and Felicity and by having the said spirituall faculties his Vnderstanding and Will linked to him His Vnderstanding is united to God by Faith his Will by Charity The former relies upon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodnesse Faith hath a deadly opposite Heresie Contrary to the Vnion or Vnity of Charity is Separation and Division Charity is twofold As it respects God his Opposite Vice is Hatred against God as it uniteth us to our Neighbour his contrary is Seperation or division of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one private person
they cannot lawfully excercise 7. In the judgement of the holy Fathers Schisme is a most grievous offence S. Chrisostome compares these Schismaticall dividers of Christs mysticall body to those who sacrilegiously pietced his naturall body saying Nothing doth so much incense God as that the Church should be divided Although we should do innumerable good works if we divide the full Ecclesiastical Congregation we shall be punished no lesse then they who tore his naturall body For that was done to the gaine of the whole world although not with that intention but this hath no profit at all but there ariseth from it most great harme These things are spoken not only to those who beare office but also to those who are governed by them Behold how neither a morall good life which conceit deceiveth many nor authority of Magistrates nor any necessity of Obeying Superiours can excuse Schisme from being a most haynous offence Optatus Milevitanus cals Schisme Ingeâ—s stagitium a huge crime And speaking to the Donatists saith that Schisme is evill in the highest degree even you are not able to deny No lesse patheticall is S. Augustine upon this subject He reckons Schismatiques amongst Pagans Heretiques and Iewes saying Religion is to be sought neither in the conâ—usion of Pagans nor in the filth of Heretiques nor in the languishing of Schismatiques nor in the Age of the Iewes but amongst those alone who are called Christian Catholiques or Orthodox that is lovers of Vnity in the whole body and followers of truth Nay he esteemes them worse then Infidels and Idolaters saying Those whom the Donatists heale from the wound of Infidelity and Idolatry they hurt more grievously with the wound of Schisme Let there those men who are pleased untruely to call us Idolaters reflect upon themselves and consider that this holy Father judgeth Schismatiques as they are to be worse then Idolaters which they absurdly call us And this he proveth by the example of Core and Dathan Abiron and other rebellious Schismatiques of the old Testament who were convayed alive downe into Hell and punished more openly then Idolaters No doubt saith this holy Father but that was committed most wickedly which was punished most severaly In another place he yoaketh Schisme with Heresy saying upon the Eight Beatitude Many Heretiques under the name of Christians deceiving mens soules doe suffer many such things but therefore they are excluded from this reward because it is not only said Happy are they who suffer persecution but there is added for Iustice. But where there is not sound faith there cannot be justice Neither can Schismatiques promise to themselves any part of this reward because likewise where there is no Charity there cannot be justice And in another place yet more effectually he saith Being out of the Church and divided from the heape of Vnity and the bond of Charity thou shouldest be punished with eternall death though thou shouldest he burned alive for the name of Christ. And in another place he hath these words If he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican which is more grievous then if he were smitten with the sword consumed with flames or cast to wild beasts And else where Out of the Catholique Church saith he one may have Faith Sacraments Orders and in summe all things except Salvation With S. Augustine his Countreyman and second selfe in sympathy of spirit S. Fulgentius agreeth saying Believe this stedfastly without doubting that every Heretique or Schismatique baptized in the name of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost if before the end of his life he be not reconciled to the Catholique Church what Almes soever he give yea though he should shed his bloud for the name of Christ he cannot obtaine Salvation Marke againe how no morall honesty of life no good deeds no Martyrdome can without repentance availe any schismatique for salvation Let us also adde that D. Potter saith Schisme is no lesse damnable then Heresy 8. But ô you Holy Learned Zealous Fathers and Doctours of Gods Church out of these premises of the grievousnesse of schisme and of the certain damnation which it bringeth if unrepented what conclusion draw you for the instruction of Christians S. Augustine maketh this wholesome inference There is no iust necessity to divide Vnity S. Irenaeus concludeth They cannot make any so important reformation as the evill of the Schisme is pernicious S. Denis of Alexandria saith Certainly all things should rather be indured then to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no lesse glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to Idols Would to God all those who divided themselves from that visible Church of Christ which was upon earth when Luther appeared would rightly consider of these things and thâ—s much of the second Point 9 We have just and necessary occasion eternally to blesse almighty God who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the Catholique Romaâ— Church from which while men fall they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities or rather sacrilegious blasphemies as is implyed in the doctrine of the totall deficiency of the visible Church which yet is maintained by divers chief Protestants as may at large be seen in Brerely and others out of whom I will here name Iewell saying The truth was unknown at that time and unheard of when Martin Luther and Vlderick Zuinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospell Perkins saith We say that before the daies of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an universall Apostacy overspread the whole face of the earth and that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world Napper upon the Revelations teacheth that from the yeare of Christ three hundred and sixteen the Antichristian and Papisticall raigne hath begun raigning universally and without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty yeares that is till Luthers time And that from the yeare of Christ three hundred and sixteen God hath withdrawn his visible Church from open Assemblies to the hearts of particular godly men c. during the space of one thousand two hundred three score yeares And that the Pope and Clergy have possessed the outward visible Church of Christians even one thousand two hundred three score yeares And that the true Church abode latent and invisible And Brocard upon the Revelations professeth to joyne in opinion with Napper Fulke affirmeth that in the time of Boniface the third which was the year 607. the Church was invisible and fled into the wildernesse there to remain a long season Luther saith Priâ—â— solus eram At the first I was alone Iacob Hailâ—ronerus one of the Disputants for the Protestant Party in the conference at Ratisbone affirmeth that
any even with any little colour of common sense If then they departed from all visible Communities professing Christ it followeth that they also left the Communion of the true visible Church whichsoever it was whether that of Rome or any other of which Point I doe not for the present dispute Yea this the Lutherans doe not only acknowledge but prove and brag of If faith a learned Lutheran there had 〈◊〉 right â—elievers which went before Luther in his office there had then been no need of a Lutheran Reformation Another affirmeth it to be ridiculous to think that in the time before Luther any had the purity of Doctrine and that Luther should receive it from them and not they from Luther Another speaketh roundly and saith it is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany before Luther did hold the Doctrine of the Gospell And I adde That farre greater impudency it were to affirme that Germany did not agree with the rest of Europe and other Christian Catholique Nations and consequently that it is the greatest impudency to deny that he departed from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church spread over the whole world We have heard Calvin saying of Protestants in generall We were even forced to make a separation from the whole world And Luther of himselfe in particular In the beginning I was alone Ergo say I by your good leave you were at least a Schismatique divided from the Ancient Church and a member of no new Church For no sole man can constitute a Church and though he could yet such a Church could not be that glorious company of whose number greatnesse and amplitude so much hath been spoken both in the old Testament and in the New 13 D. Potter endeavours to avoid this evident Argument by divers evasions but by the confutation thereof I will with Gods holy assistance take occasion even out of his own Answers and grounds to bring unanswerable reasons to convince them of Schisme 14 His chief Answer is That they have not left the Church but her Corruption 15 I reply This answer may be given either by those furious people who teach that those abuses and corruptions in the Church were so enormous that they could not stand with the nature or being of a true Church of Christ Or else by those other more calme Protestants who affirme that those errors did not destroy the being but only deforme the beauty of the Church Against both these sorts of men I may fitly use that unanswerable Dilemma which S. Augustine brings against the Donatists in these concluding words Tell me whether the Church at that time when you say she entertained those who were guilty of all crimes by the contagion of those sinfull persons perished or perished not Answere whether the Church perished or perished not Make choice of what you think If then she perished what Church brought forth Dâ—natus we may say Luther But if she could not perish because so many were incorporated into her without Baptisme that is without a second baptisme or rebaptization and I may say without Luthers Reformation answer me I pray you what madnesse did moue the Sect of Donâ—tus to separate themselâ—es from her upon pretence to avoid the Communion of â—ad men I beseech the Reader to ponder every one of S. Augustines words and to consider whether any thing could haâ—e been spoken more directly against Luther and his followers of what sort soever 16 And now to answer more in particular I say to those who reach that the visible Church of Christ perished for many Ages that I can easily afford them the curâ—esie to free them from meer Schisme but all men touched with any spark of zeal to vindicate the wisedome and Goodnesse of our Saviour from blasphemous injurie cannot choose but believe and proclaim them to be superlative Arch-heretiques Neverthelesse if they will needs haue the honour of Singularity and desire to be both formall Heretiques and properly Schismatiques I will tell them that while they dream of an invisible Church of men which agree with them in Faith they will upon due reflection find themselves to be Schismatiques from those corporeall Angels or invisible men because they held externall Communion with the visible Church of those times the outward Communion of which visible Church these modern hot-spurs forsaking were thereby divided from the outward Communion of their hidden Brethren and so are Separatists from the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith which is Schisme in the most formall and proper signification thereof Moreover according to D. Potter these boysterous Creatures are properly Schismariques For the reason why he thinks himselfe and such as he is to be cleared from Schisme notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church is because according to his Divinity the property of Schisme is witnesse the Donatists and Luciferians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates But those Protestants of whom we now speak cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated themselues and they doe it directly as the Donatists in whom you exemplify did by affirming that the true Church had perished and therefore they cannot bee cleared from Schisme if you may be their Iudge Consider I pray you how many prime Protestants both domesticall and forraign you haue at one blow struck off from hope of Salvation and condemned to the lowest pit for the grievous sinne of Schisme And withall it imports you to consider thaâ— you also involve your selfe and other moderate Protestants in the selfe same crime and punishment while you communicate with those who according to your own principles are properly formally Schismatiques For if you held your selfe obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors and Corrâ—ptions which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable for you to live in Communion and Confraternity with those who defend an errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly hereticall against the Article of our Creed I believe the Church And I desire the Reader here to apply an authority of S. Cyprian epist. 76. which he shall finde alleaged in the next number And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answer as it might haue relation to the rigid Calvinists 17 For Confutation of these Protestants who hold that the Church of Christ had alwaies a being and cannot erre in points fundamentall and yet teach that she may erre in matters of lesse moment wherein if they forsake her they would be accounted not to leave the Church but onely her corruptions I must say that they change the state of our present Question not distinguishing between internall Faith and externall Communion nor between Schisme and
Heresie This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himselfe who in expresse words teacheth that the promises which our Lord hath made unto his Church for his assistance are intended not to any particular Persons or Churches but only to the Church Catholique and they are to be extended not to every parcel or particularity of truth but only to points of Faith or fundamentall And afterwards speaking of the Vniversall Church he sâ—â—th It 's comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers and conserue her on earth against all enemies but shee may not hope to triumph over all sinne and errour till she be in heaven Out of which words I observe that according to D. Potter the selfe same Church which is the Vniversall Church remaining the universall true Church of Christ may fall into errors and corruptions from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the Externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church since the Church Catholique and the Church so corrupted is the selfe same one Church or company of men And the contrary imagination talkes in a dream as if the errours and infections of the Catholique Church were not inherent in her but were separate from her like to Accidents without any Subject or rather indeed as if they were not Accidents but Hypostases or Persons subsisting by themselues For men cannot be said to liue in or out of the Communion of any dead creature but with Persons endued with life and reason and much lesse can men be said to live in the Communion of Accidents as errors and corruptions are and therefore it is an absurd thing to affirm that Protestants divided themselues from the corruptions of the Church but not from the Church her selfe seeing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church All this is made more cleer if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Churches holding contrary Doctrines and divided in externall Communion one of the which two Churches did triumph over all errour and corruption in doctrine and practise but the other was stained with both For to faign this diversity of two Churches cannot stand with record of histories which are silent of any such matter It is against D. Potters own grounds that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall which were not true if you will imagine a certain visible Catholique Church free from errour even in points not fundamentall It contradicteth the words in which he said the Church may not hope to triumph over all errour till she be in heaven It evacuateth the brag of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church and lastly it maketh Luther a Schismatique for leaving the Communion of all visible Churches seeing upon this supposition there was a visible Church of Christ free from all corruption which therefore could not be forsaken without just imputation of Schisme We must therefore truly affirme that since there was but one visible Church of Christ which was truly Catholique and yet was according to Protestants stained with corruption when Luther left the externall Communion of that corrupted Church he could not remain in the Communion of the Catholique Church no more then it is possible to keep company with D. Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Queenes Colledge in Oxford if D. Potter and the Provost be one and the selfe same man For so one should be and not be with him at the same time This very argument drawne from the Vnity of God's Church S. Cyprian urgeth to convince that Novatianus was cut off from the Church in these words The Church is One which being One cannot be both within and without If she â—e with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull ordination Novatianus is not in the Church I purposely here speak only of externall Communion with the Catholique Church For in this point there is great difference between internall acts of our understanding and will and of externall deeds Our Vnderstanding and Will are faculties as Philosophers speak abstractive and able to distinguish and as it were to part things though in themselves they be really conjoyned But reall externall deeds doe take things in grosse as they find them not separating things which in reality are joyned together Thus one may consider and loue a sinner as he is a man friend benefactor or the like and at the same time not consider him nor loue him as he is a sinner because these are acts of our Vnderstanding and will which may respect their objects under some one formality or consideration without reference to other things contained in the selfe same objects But if one should strike or kill a sinfull man he will not be excused by alleaging that he killed him not as a man but as a sinner because the selfe same person being a man and the sinner the externall act of murder fell joyntly upon the man and the sinner And for the same reason one cannot avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with that man who is a sinner And this is our case and in this our Adversaries are egregiously many of them affectedly mistaken For one may in some points belieue as the Church believeth and disagree from her in other One may loue the truth which she holds and detest her pretended corruptions But it is impossible that a man should really separate himselfe from her externall Communion as she is corrupted and be really within the same externall Communion as she is sound because she is the selfe same Church which is supposed to be sound in some things and to erre in others Now our question for the present doth concern only this point of externall Communion because Schisme as it is distinguished from Heresie is committed when one divides himselfe from the Externall Communion of that Church with which he agrees in Faith Whereas Heresie doth necessarily imply a difference in matter of Faith and beliefe and therefore to say that they left not the visible Church but her errours can only excuse them from Heresie which shâ—ll be tried in the next Chapter but not from Schisme as long as they are really divided from the Externall Communion of the selfe same visible Church which notwithstanding those errours wherein they doe in judgement dissent from her doth still remain the true Catholique Church of Christ and therefore while they forsake the corrupted Church they forsake the Catholique Church Thus then it remaineth cleer that their chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internall acts of the Vnderstanding with externall Deeds doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresie and leaues this demonstrated against them That they divided themselues from the Communion of the visible Catholique Church because they
conceived that she needed Reformation But whether this pretence of Reformation will acquit them of Schisme I referre to the unpartiall judges heretofore alleaged as to S. Irenaeus who plainly saith They cannot make any so important REFORMATION as the Evill of the Schisme is pernicious To S. Denis of Alexandria saying Certainly all things should be endured rather then to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no lesse glorious that expose themselues to hinder the dismembring of the Church then those that suffer rather then they will offer sacrifice to Idols To S. Augustine who tells us That not to heare the Church is a more grievous thing then if he were striken with the sword consumed with flames exposed to wild beasts And to conclude all in few words he giveth this generall prescription There is no just necessity to divide unity And D. Potter may remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe But I haue shewed that Luther and the rest departed from the Church of Christ if Christ had any Church upon earth Therefore there could be no just cause of Reformation or what else soever to doe as they did and therefore they must be contented to be held for Schismatiques 18 Moreover I demand whether those corruptions which moved them to forsake the Communion of the visible Church were in manners or doctrine Corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church otherwise men must goe not only out of the Church but out of the world as the Apostle saith Our blessed Saviour foretold that there would bee in the Church cares with choice corne and â—inners with just men If then Protestants wax zealous with the Servants to pluck up the weeds let them first harken to the wisdome of the Master Let both grow up And they ought to imitate them who as S. Augustine saith tolerate for the good of Vnity that which they detest for the good of equity And to whom the more frequent foule such scandals are by so much the more is the merit of their perseverance in the Communion of the Church and the Martyrdome of their patience as the same Saint calls it If they were offended with the life of some Ecclesiasticall persons must they therefore deny obedience to their Pastors and finally break with Gods Church The Pastour of Pastours teacheth us another lesson Vpon the Chaire of Moyses haue sitten the Scribes and Pharisees All things threfore whatsoever they shall say to you obserue yee and doe yee but according to their works doe yee not Must people except against lawes and revolt from Magistrats because some are negligent or corrupt in the execution of the same lawes and performance of their office If they intended Reformation of manners they used a strange means for the achieving of such an end by denying the necessity of Confession laughing at aufferity of pennance condemning the vowes of Chastity poverty obedience breaking fasts c. And no lesse unfit were the Men then the Meanes I loue not recrimination But it is well known to how great crimes Luther Calvin Zwinglius Beza and other of the prime Reformers were notoriously obnoxious as might bee easily demonstrated by the onely transcribing of what others haue delivered upon that subject whereby it would appeare that they were very farre from being any such Apostolicall men as God is wont to use in so great a work And whereas they were wont especially in the beginning of their revolt malitiously to exaggerate the faults of some Clergy men Erasmus said well Epist ad fratres inferior is Germaniae Let the riot lust ambition avarice of Priests and what soever other crimes be gathered together Heresie aâ—one doth exceed all this filthy lake of vices Besides nothing at all was omitted by the sacred Councell of Trent which might tend to reformation of manners And finally the vices of others are not hurtfull to any but such as imitate and consent to them according to the saying of S. Augustine We conserve innocency not by knowing the ill deeds of men but by not yeelding consent to such as we know and by not judging rashly of such faults as we know not If you answer that not corruption in manners but the approbation of them doth yeeld sufficient cause to leaue the Church I reply with S. Augustine that the Church doth as the pretended Reformers ought to haue done tolerate or beare with scandals and corruptions but neither doth nor can approue them The Church saith he being placed betwixt much chaffe and cockle doth beare with many things but doth not approue nor dissemble nor act those things which are against faith and good life But because to approue corruption in manners as lawfull were an errour against Faith it belongs to corruption in doctrine which was the second part of my demand 19 Now then that corruptions in doctrine I still speak upon the untrue supposition of our Adversaries could not afford any sufficient cause or colourable necessity to depart from that visible Church which was extant when Luther rose I demonstrate out of D. Potters own confession that the Catholique Church neither hath nor can erre in points fundamentall as wee shewed out of his own expresse words which he also of set purpose delivereth in divers other places and all they are obliged to maintain the same who teach that Christ had alwaies a visible Church upon earth because any one fundamentall error overthrowes the being of a true Church Now as Schoolmen speak it is implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plain that one word destroyeth the other as if one should say a living dead man to affirm that the Church doth not erre in points necessary to salvation or damnably yet that it is damnable to remain in her Communion because she teacheth errors which are confessed not to be damnable For if the error be not damnable nor against any fundamentall Article of Faith the beliefe thereof cannot bee damnable But D. Potter teacheth that the Catholique Church cannot and that the Roman Church hath not erred against any fundamentall Article of Faith Therefore it cannot bee damnable to remaine in her Communion and so the pretended corruptions in her doctrine could not induce any obligation to depart from her Communion nor could excuse them from Schisme who upon pretence of necessity in point of conscience forsook her And D. Potter will never bee able to salve a manifest contradiction in these his words To depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrine and practises there might be necessary cause though she wanted nothing necessary to salvation For if notwithstanding these Doctrines and practises shee wanted nothing necessary to salvation how could it be necessary to salvation to forsake her And therefore wee must still conclude that to forsake her was properly an act of Schisme 20
the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecâ—ssary additions as you terme them And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation they should grow to fundamentall errors into which your selfe teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such unprofitable stâ—ff laid on the roofe destroies not the house whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundatioâ— And tell us I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot doe it and therefore being uncertain whether or no you have cause to leave the Church you are certainly obliged not to forsake her Our blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we forgive a private offender seaventy seaven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alleadge his command that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall What excuse can you faine to your selves who for points not necessary to salvation have been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach in kingdomes in commonwealths in private persons in publique Magistrates in body in soul in goods in life in Church in the state by Schismes by rebellions by war by famine by plague by bloudshed by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth wherein as in a map of Desolation the heavinesse of your crime appeares under which the world doth pant 24 To say for your excuse that you left not the Church but her errors doth not extenuate but aggravate your sinne For by this devise you sow seeds of endles Schismes and put into the mouth of all Separatists a ready answere how to avoid the note of Schisme from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoever They will I say answer as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors which two grounds being once laid it will not be hard to infer the consequence that she may be forsaken 25 From some other words of D. Potter I likewise prove that for Errors not fundamentall the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was saith he nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe To depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke his doctrine that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamentall for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your selfe deny and I pray you consider whether you doe not plainly contradict your selfe while in the words aboue recited you say there can be no iust cause to forsake the Catholique Church and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome since you grant that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall and that the Roman Church hath erred only in such points as by and by we shall see more in particular And thus much be said to disprove their chiefest Answer that they left not the Church but her corruptions 26 Another evasion D. Potter bringeth to avoid the imputation of Schisme and it is because they still acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleeres us from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 27 This is an Answere which perhaps you may get some one to approve if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious doctrines are these Those Protestants who believe that the Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others who believed that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they iudged that she retained all meanes necessary to salvation I say because they so iudged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himselfe and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsooke is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvations whereas those other Zelots deny her to be a member of Christs body or capable of salvation wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they doe it upon a different motive or reason were it not a strange excuse if a man would think to cloak his rebellion by alledging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawfull Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himselfe free from Schisme because he forsook the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be the true Church and to have all necessary meanes to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemne foppery and doe much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confesse that they cannot cleere themselves from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plain termes say They must be damned unlesse we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your zealous brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere your selfe from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith as you must professe your selfe to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne your selfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schisme you cannot cleere your selfe from that crime unlesse you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you doe not cut us off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be iust and necessary canse That they that have the understanding and meanes to discover their error and neglect to use them we dare
not flatter them say you with so easy a censure of hope of salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schisme to cut off from the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates how will you cleere your selfe from Schisme who dare not flatter us with so easy a censure and who affirme that a reconciliation with us is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertions by reason of difficulties which presse you on all sides For you are loath to affirme cleerely that we may be saved least such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if your affirme that our Church erred in points fundamentall or necessary to salvation you knew not how not where not among what company of men to find a perpetuall visible Church of Christ before Luther And therefore your best shift is to say and unsay as your occasion command I doe not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schisme to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates wherein you are mightily mistaken as appears by your own example of the Donatists who were most formall and proper Heretiques and not Schismatiques as Schisme is a vice distinct from Heresy Besides although the Donatists and Luciferians whom you also alledge had been meere Schismatiques yet it were against all good Logick from a particular to inferre a generall Rule to determine what is the property of Schisme 28 A third device I find in D. Potter to cleere his brethren from Schisme There is saith he great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of our selves 29 This I confesse is a quaint subtilty by which all Schisme Sinne may be as well excused For what divell incarnate could meerely pretend a separtion and not rather some other motive of vertue truth profit or pleasure But now since their pretended Reformation consisted as they gaâ—e out in forsaking the corruptions of the Church the Reformation of themselves and their division from us falls out to be one and the selfe same thing Nay we see that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation yet they symbolize and consent in the generall point of forsaking our pretended corruptions An evident signe that the thing upon which their thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idea of Religion but a setled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome Wherefore this Metaphysicall speculation that they intended only to reforme themselves cannot possible excuse them from Schisme unlesse first they be able to prove that they were obliged to depart from us Yet for as much as concernes the fact it selfe it is cleere that Luthers revolt did not proceed from any zeale of reformation The motives which put him upon so wretched and unfortunate a work were Covetousnesse Ambition Lust Pride Envy and grudging that the promulgation of Indulgences was not committed to himself or such as he desired He himself taketh God to witnesse that he fell into these troubles casually and against his will not upon any intention of Reformation not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might happen And he began to preach against Indulgences when he knew not what the matter meant For saith he I scarcely understood then what the name of Indulgences meant In so much as afterwards Luther did much mistake of his owne undertaken course oftentimes saith he wishing that I had never begunne that businesse And Fox saith It is apparent that Luther promised Cardinall Caietan to keep silence provided also his adversaries would doe the like M. Cowper reporteth further that Luther by his letter submitted himself to the Pope so that he might not be compelled to recant With much more which may be seen in Brereley But this is sufficient to shew that Luther was farre enough from intending any Reformation And if he judged a Reformation to be necessary what a huge wickednesse was it in him to promise silence if his adversaries would doe the like Or to submit himself to the Pope so that he might not be compelled to recant Or if the Reformation were not indeed intended by him nor judged to be necessary how can he be excused froÌ„ damnable Schisme And this is the true manner of Luthers revolt taken from his owne acknowledgments and the words of the more ancient Protestants themselves whereby D. Potters faltring and mincing the matter is cleerely discovered and confuted Vpon what motives our Country was divided from the Roman Church by king Henry the Eight and how the Schisme was continued by Queene Elizabeth I have no heare to rip up The world knoweth it was not upon any zeale of Reformation 30 But you will prove your former evasion by a couple of similitudes If a Monastery should reforme it selfe and should reduce into practise ancient good discipline when others would not in this case could it is reason bee charged with Schisme from others or with Apostacy from its rule and order Or as in a society of men universally infected with some disease they that should free themselves from the common disease could not be therefore said to separate from the society so neither can the reformed Churches be truely accused for making a Schisme from the Church seeing all they did was to reforme themselves 31 I was very glad to find you in a Monastery but sorry when I perceived that you were inventing wayes how to forsake your Vocation and to maintaine the lawfulnesse of Schisme from the Church and Apostasie from a Religious Order Yet before you make your finall resolution heare a word of advise Put case That a Monastery did confessedly observe their substantiall vowes and all principall Statutes or Constitutions of the Order though with some neglect of lesser Monasticall Observances And that a Reformation were undertaken not by authority of lawfull Superiours but by some One or very few in comparison of the rest And those few knowne to be led not with any spirit of Reformation but by some other sinister intention And that the Statutes of the house were even by those busie fellowes confessed to have been time out of mind understood and practised as now they were And further that the pretended Reformers acknowledged that themselves as soone as they were gone out of their Monastery must not hope to be free from those or the like errors and corruptions for which they left their Brethren And which is more that they might fall into more enormous crimes then they did or could doe in their Monastery which we suppose to be secured from all substantiall corruptions for the avoyding of which they have an infallible assistance Put I say together all these my And 's and then come with your If 's If a Monastery should reforme it self
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
malice If these mens conceits were true the Church might come to be wholly divided by wicked Schismes and yet after some space of time none could be accused of Schisme nor be obliged to returne to the visible Church of Christ and so there should remaine no One true visible Church Let therefore these men who pretend to honour reverence and believe the Doctrine and practise of the visible Church and to condemne their forefathers who forsooke her and say they would not have done so if they had lived in the daies of their Fathers and yet follow their example in remaining divided from her Communion consider how truly these words of our Saviour fall upon them Woe be to you because you build the Prophets sepulchers and garnish the monuments of just men and say If we had been in our Fathers daies we had not been their fellowes in the blood of the Prophets Therefore you are a testimony to your own selves that you are the sonnes of them that killed the Prophets and fill up the measure of your Fathers 46 And thus having demonstrated that Luther his Associates and all that continue in the Schisme by them begun are guilty of Schisme by departing from the visible true Church of Christ it remaineth that we examine what in particular was that Visible true Church from which they departed that so they may know to what Church in particular they ought to returne and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fift Point 47 That the Roman Church I speak not for the present of the particular Diocesse of Rome but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chaire of Peter whether that Sea were supposed to be in the City of Rome or in any other place That I say the Church of Rome in this sense was the visible Catholique Church out of which Luther departed is proved by your own confession who assigne for notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods word and due administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confesse that she wanted nothing fundamentall or necessary to salvation and for that very cause you think to cleare your selfe from Schisme whose property as you say is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellowes were born and baptized in the Roman Church and that she was the Church out of which they departed is notoriously known and therefore you cannot cut her off from the Body of Christ and hope of Salvation unlesse you will acknowledge your selfe to deserve the just imputation of Schisme Neither can you deny her to be truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not fundamentall For your selfe avouch and endeavour to prove that the true Catholique Church may erre in such points Moreover I hope you will not so much as goe about to prove that when Luther rose there was any other true visible Church disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrines and you cannot deny but that England in those daies agreed with Rome and other Nations with England And therefore either Christ had no visible Church upon Earth or else you must grant that it was the Church of Rome A truth so manifest that those Protestants who affirme the Roman Church to have lost the nature and being of a true Church doe by inevitable consequence grant that for divers ages Christ had no visible Church on earth from which error because D. Potter disclaimeth he must of necessity maintaine that the Roman Church is free from fundamentall and damnable error and that she is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the Hope of Salvation And if saith he any Zelots amongst us haue proceeded to heavier censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and wisdome cannot be justified 48 And to touch particulars which perhaps some may object No man is ignorant that the Grecians even the Schismaticall Grecians doe in most points agree with Roman Catholiques and disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which point D. Potter also confesseth Invocation of Saints and Angels veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enjoyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrisme Extream unction All the seaven Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Almes for the dead Monachisme That Priests may not marry after their Ordination In which points that the Grecians agree with the Roman Church appeareth by a Treatise published by the Protestant Divines of Wittemberg intituled Acta Theologorum Wittembergensium Iâ—remiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana confessione c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant Crispinus and by Sir Edwin Sands in the Relation of the State of Religion of the West And I wonder with what colour of truth to say no worse D. Potter could affirme that the Doctrines debated between the Protestants and Rome are only the partiall and particular fancies of the Roman Church unlesse happily the opinion of Transubstantiation may be excepted wherein the latter Grecians seem to agree with the Romanists Beside the Protestant Authors already cited Petrus Arcudiâ—s a Grecian and a learned Catholique Writer hath published a large Volume the Argument and Title whereof is Of the agreement of the Roman and Greek Church in the seven Sacraments As for the Heresy of the Grecians that the Holy Ghost proceeds not from the Some I suppose that Protestants dissvow them in that error as we doe 49 D. Potter will not I think so much wrong his reputation as to tell us that the Waldenses Wiccliffe Husse or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knowes that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Ages not in all Countries But confined to certain places and were interrupted in Time against the notion and nature of the word Catholique They had no Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastors They differed among themselues and from Protestants also They agreed in divers things with us against Protestants They held doctrines manifestly absurd and damnable heresies 50 The Waldenses began not before the year 1218 so farre were they from Vniversality of all Ages For their doctrine first they denied all Iudgements which extended to the drawing of bloud and the Sabbath for which cause they were called In-sabbatists Secondly they taught that Lay men and women might consecrate the Sacrament and preach no doubt but by this meanes to make their Master Waldo a meere lay man capable of such functions Thirdly that Clergy men ought to have no possessions or proprieties Fourthly that there should be no division of Parishes nor Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a barne Fiftly that men ought not to take an oath in any case Sixtly
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
to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us That whosoever either beginnes or continues a division for the Roman Church which we haue proved to be Christs true Militant Church on earth cannot without effectuall repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven And so I conclude with these words of blessed S. Augustine It is common to all Heretiques to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest and placed in the light of all Nations out of whose Vnity whatsoever they work though they seem to doe it with great care and diligence can no more availe them against the wrath of God then the Spiders web against the extremity of cold But now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of Division from the Church which is by Heresie THE ANSVVER TO THE FIFTH CHAPTER The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon iust and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schisme 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In the seaven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue deserue a censure As 2 First That Schisme could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unlesse there alwaies had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falshood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schisme might now be and be a Division from the present visible Church As though in France there never had been untill now a lawfull Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Soveraigne authority 3 That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithfull people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithfull as it is plain you doe free from all errour in faith then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to bee false and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question 4 That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this division must be so likewise Which is not so certaine as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall doe commit a great fault whereof notwithanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus haue I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithfull maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the K. of Spaine 5 Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours doe concurre to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6 Fiftly That all the members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mysticall body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7 Sixtly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithfull people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the visible Church 8 Seaventhly That every Heretique is a Schismatique Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some point professed by your Church and so are Heretiques yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9 Eightly That all the members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in externall Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches communion yet he is still a member of the Church and divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrisostome and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued members of the Catholique Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shewe or pretence of proofe The rest is an impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I passe to the eighth Section 10 Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacie One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood which yet are maintained by more then thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases For whereas you say S. Austine c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. infers out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Vnity to let passe your want of diligence in quoting the 62. chapter of that Booke which hath but 23. in it to passe by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapt. are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he saies not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Vnity which only were for your purpose but only in such a speciall cale as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can doe thē no spirituall hurt to the intent they may not be seperated from those who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Vnity Which very words doe cleerely give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Vnity with bad men without spirituall hurt i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austines mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book where to Parmenian demanding how can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted He answers Very true this is not possible if he be ioyned with them that is if he commit any evill with them or favour them which doe commit it But if he doe neither of these he is not ioyned with them
and honest Fore-fathers Thus declaring plainly though in words they denyed the Visibility of the true Church yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity but the perpetuall purity and incorruption of the Visible Church 15 Ad § 11. Let us proceed therefore to your 11. Sect. where though D. Potter and other Protestants granting the Churches perpetuall Visibility make it needlesse for you to prove it yet you will needs be doing that which is needlesse But you doe it so coldly and negligently that it is very happy for you that D. Potter did grant it 16 For what if the Prophets spake more obscurely of Christ then of the Church What if they had foreseen that greater contentions would arise about the Church then Christ Which yet he that is not a meere stranger in the story of the Church must needs know to be untrue and therefore not to be fore-seene by the Prophets What if we have manifestly received the Church from the Scriptures Does it follow from any or all these things that the Church of Christ must be alwaies Visible 17 Besides what Protestant ever granted that which you presume upon so confidently that every man for all the affaires of his soule must have recourse to some congregation If some one Christian lived alone among Pagans in some country remote from Christendome shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved because he cannot have recourse to any congregation for the affaires of his soule Will it not be sufficient for such a ones Salvation to know the doctrine of Christ and live according to it Such fancies as these you doe very wisely to take for granted because you know well t is hard to prove them 18 Let it be as unlawfull as you please to deny and dissemble matters of faith Let them that doe so not be a Church but a damned Crew of Sycophants What is this to the Visibility of the Church May not the Church be Invisible and yet these that are of it professe their faith No say you Their profession will make them visible Very true visible in the places where and in the times when they live and to those persons unto whom they have necessary occasion to make their profession But not visible to all or any great or considerable part of the world while they live much lesse conspicuous to all Ages after them Now it is a Church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require by whose splendour all men may be directed drawn to repaire to her for the affaires of their soules Neither is it the Visibility of the Church absolutely but this degree of it which the most rigid Protestants deny which is plaine enough out of the places of Napper cited by you in your 9. Part. of this chapt Where his words are God hath withdrawne his visible Church from open Assemblies to the hearts of particular godly men And this Church which had not open Assemblies he calls The latent and Invisible Church Now I hope Papists in England will be very apt to grant men may be so farre Latent and Invisible as not to professe their faith in open Assemblies nor to proclaime it to all the world yet not deny nor dissemble it nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants 19 But preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments cannot but make a Church visible and these are inseparable notes of the Church I answer they are so far inseparable that wheresoever they are there a Church is But not so but that in some cases there may bee a Church where these notes are not Againe these notes will make the Church visible But to whom certainly not to all men nor to most mē But to them only to whom the word is preached and the Sacraments are administred They make the Church visible to whom themselves are visible but not to others As where your Sacraments are administred and your doctrine preached it is visible that there is a Popish Church But this may perhaps be visible to them only who are present at these performances and to others as secret as if they had never beene performed 20 But S. Austine saith it is an impudent abominable detestable speech and so forth to say the Church hath perished I answer 1. All that S. Austine sayes is not true 2. Though this were true it were nothing to your purpose unlesse you will conceive it all one not to be not to be conspicuously visible 3. This very speech that the Church perished might be false and impudent in the Donatists and yet not so in the Protestants For there is no incongruity that what hath lived 500. yeares may perish in 1600. But S. Austin denyed not only the Actuall perishing but the possibility of it and not only of it's falling to nothing but of it's falling into corruption I answer though no such thing appeares out of those places yet I believe heare of disputation against the Donatists and a desire to over-confute them transported him so farre as to urge against them more then was necessary and perhaps more then was true But were he now revived did but confront the doctrine of after-ages with that his owne experience would enforce him to change his opinion As concerning the last speech of S. Austine I cannot but wonder very much why he should thinke it absurd for any man to say There are sheepe which he knowes not but God knowes and no lesse at you for obtruding this sentence upon us as pertinent proofe of the Churches visibility 21 Neither doe I see how the Truth of any present Church depends the Perpetuall Visibility nay nor upon the perpetuity of that which is past or future For what sense is there that it should not be in the power of God Almighty to restore to a flourishing estate a Church which oppression hath made Invisible to repaire that which is ruined to reforme that which was corrupted or to reviue that which was dead Nay what Reason is there but that by ordinary meanes this may be done so long as the Scriptures by Divine Providence are preserved in their integrity and Authority As a Common-wealth though never so farre collapsed and overrunne with disorders is yet in possibility of being reduc'd unto its Originall state so long as the Ancient Lawes and Fundamentall Constitutions are extant and remain inviolate from whence men may be directed how to make such a Reformation But S. Austine urges this uery Argument against the Donatists and therefore it is good I answer that I doubt much of the Consequence and my Reason is because you your selves acknowledge that even generall Councels and therefore much more particular Doctors though infallible in their determinations are yet in their Reasons and Arguments where upon they ground them subject to like Passions and Errours with other men 22 Lastly whereas you say That all Divines define Schisme a Division from the true Church and from
thence collect That there must be a known Church from which it is possible for men to depart I might very justly question your Antecedent and desire you to consider whether Schisme be not rather or at least be not as well a division of the Church as from it A separation not of a part from the whole but of some parts from the other And if you liked not this definition I might desire you to inform me in those many Schismes which haue hapned in the Church of Rome which of the parts was the Church which was divided from it But to let this passe certainly your consequence is most unreasonable For though whensoever there is a Schisme it must necessarily suppose a Church existent there yet sure wee may define a Schisme that is declare what the word signifies for Defining is no more though at this presēt there were neither Schisme nor Church in the world Vnlesse you will say that we cannot tell what a Rose is or what the word Rose signifies but only in the Summer when wee haue Roses or that in the world to come when men shall not marry it is impossible to know what it is to marry or that the Plague is not a disease but only when some body is infected or that Adultery is not a sin unlesse there be Adulterers or that before Adam had a Child hee knew not God could not haue told him what it was to be a Father Certainly Sr you haue forgot your Metaphysicks which you so much glory in if you know not that the connexions of essentiall predicates with their subjects are eternall depend not at all upō the actuall existence of the thing defined This Definition therefore of Schisme concludes not the existence of a Church even when it is defined much lesse the perpetuall continuance of it and least of all the continuance of it in perpetuall visibility and purity which is the only thing that we deny you are to proue By this time you perceive I hope that I had reason to say that it was well for you that D. Potter granted the Churches Perpetuall Visibility for for ought I can perceive this Concession of his is the best stake in your hedge the best piller upon which this Conclusion stands which yet is the only ground-work of your whole Accusation 23 Ad § 12. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. The remainder of this Chapter to convince Luther and all that follow him to be Schismatiques affords us Arguments of two sorts The first drawn from the nature of the thing the second from D. Potters words acknowledgments So that the former if they be good must bee good against all Protestants the latter only against D. Potter I will examine them all doubt not to make i◠appeare even to your selfe if you haue any indifference that there is not any sound concluding reason amongst them but that they are all poore and miserable Sophismes 24 First then to proue us Schismatiques you urge from the nature of Schisme this only Argument Whosoever leaue the externall Communion of the visible Church are Schismatiques But Luther and his followers left the externall Communion of the visible Church of Christ Therefore they are Schismatiques The Major of this Syllogisme you leaue naked without proofe and conceiue it as it should seem able enough to shift for it selfe The Minor or second Proposition of this Argument you prove by two other The first is this They which forsook the externall Communion of all visible Churches must needs forsake the externall Communion of the true visible Church of Christ But Luther and his followers forsook the externall Communion of all visible Churches Therefore they forsook the externall Communion of the true visible Church The Major of this Syllogisme you take for granted as you haue reason The Minor you prosecute with great pomp of words proue with plenty of Reasons built upon the Confessions of D. Potter Luther Calvin and other Protestants and this you doe in the 12 § of this Chapter The second Argument to prove the Assumption of your first Syllogisme stands thus The Roman Church when Luther and his followers made the separation was the true visible Church of Christ But Luther and his followers forsook the externall Communion of the Roman Church Therefore they forsook the externall Communion of the true visible Church of Christ. The Assumption of this Syllogisme needs no proof The Proposition which needs it very much you endeavour to confirme by these Reasons 1 The Roman Church had the notes of the Church assigned by Protestants 1. The true preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments Therefore she was the true Church The Antecedent is proved Because D. Potter confesses shee wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to salvation Therefore for the Substance of the matter she had these notes 2 Either the Roman Church was the true visible Church or Protestants can name and proue some other disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular Doctrine or else they must say there was no visible Church But they will not say there was no Church They cannot name and proue any other disagreeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular Doctrines because this cannot be the Greek Church nor that of the Waldenses Wicklifites Hussites nor that of the Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians which you confirme by severall Arguments Therefore they must grant that the Roman Church was the true visible Church And this is the businesse of your 47. 48. 49. 50. 51 52. 53. 54. and 55. Sections of this Chapter 25 Now to all this I answer very briefly thus That you have played the unwise builder and erected a stately structure upon a false foundation For whereas you take for granted as an undoubted Truth That whosoever leave the externall communion of the visible Church are Schismaticall I tell you Sir you presume too much upon us and would have us grant that which is the main point in Question For either you suppose the externall Communion of the Church corrupted and that there was a necessity for them that would communicate with this Church to communicate in her corruptions Or you suppose her Communion uncorrupted If the former and yet will take for granted that all are Schismatiques that leave her Communion though it bee corrupted you beg the Question in your proposition If the latter you beg the Question in your supposition for Protestants you know are Peremptory and Vnanimous in the Deniall of both these things Both that the Communion of the Visible Church was then uncorrupted And that they are truly Schismatiques who leave the Communion of the Visible Church if corrupted especially if the case be so and Luthers was so that they must either leave her Communion or of necessity Communicate with her in her corruptions You will say perhaps that you have already proved it impossible that the
Church or her Communion should be corrupted And therefore that they are Schismatiques who leave the externall Communion of the Visible Church because she cannot be corrupted And that hereafter you will prove that corruptions in the Churches communion though the belief and profession of them be made the condition of her communion cannot justify a separation from it And therefore that they are Schismatiques who leave the Churches communion though corrupted I Answer that I have examined your proofes of the former found that a veine of Sophistry runs cleane through them And for the latter it is so plain and palpable a falsehood that I cannot but be confident whatsoever you bring in proofe of it will like the Apples of Sodom fall to Ashes upon the first touch And this is my first and main exception against your former discourse that accusing Protestants of a very great and horrible crime you have proved your accusation only with a fallacy 26 Another is that although it were granted Schisme to leave the externall Communion of the visible Church in what state or case so ever it be and that Luther his followers were Schismatiques for leaving the externall Communion of all visible Churches yet you faile exceedingly of cleering the other necessary point undertaken by you That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church For neither doe Protestants as you mistake make the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments the notes of the visible Church but only of a visible Church now these you know are very different things the former signifying the Church Catholique or the whole Church the Latter a Particular Church or a part of the Catholique And therefore suppose out of curtesy we should grant what by argument you can never evince that your Church had these notes yet would it by no meanes follow that your Church were the Visible Church but only a Visible Church not the whole Catholique but only a part of it But then besides where doth D. Potter acknowledge any such matter as you pretend Where doth he say that you had for the substance the true Preaching of the word or due Administration of the Sacraments Or where does he say that from which you collect this you wanted nothing Fundamentall or necessary to Salvation He saies indeed that though your Errors were in themselves damnable and full of great impiety yet he hopes that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy have their errors pardoned and their soules saved And this is all he saies and this you confesse to be all he saies in diverse places of your book which is no more then you your selfe doe and must affirme of Protestants and yet I believe you will not suffer us to inferre from hence that you grant Protestants to have for the substance the true preaching of the word and due administration of the Sacraments and want nothing fundamentall or necessary to salvation And if we should draw this consequence from your concession certainly we should doe you injury in regard many things may in themselves and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation to those that have meanes to attain them as your Church generally hath which yet by accident to these which were by some impregnable impediment debarred of these meanes may by Gods mercy be made unnecessary 27 Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrine or acknowledge there was no visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Pauls similitude the head should say to the foot either you must grant that I am the whole body or name some other member that is so or confesse that there is no body To which the foot might answer I acknowledge there is a body and yet that no member beside you is this body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it And in like manner say we We acknowledge a Church there was corrupted indeed universally but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gratious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can inforce us to confesse that yours was the Church but only a part of it and that one of the worst then extant in the World In vain therefore have you troubled your selfe in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greekes Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the Visible Church For all this dicourse proceeds from a false and vain supposition and beggs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greeke c. must be alwaies exclusively to all other Communions the whole visible Church And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him that there was to be alwaies some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrine might be wrought upon and prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to goe to yours rather then the Greeke Church or any other which pretends to perpetuall succession as well as yours that I doe not understand Vnlesse it be for the reason which Aeneas Syluius gave why more held the Pope above a Councell then a Councell above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councells gave none and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis were not like to have their cause very well maintained For put the case I should grant of meere favour that there must be alwaies some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errors in doctrine and that Protestants had not alwaies such a Church it would follow indeed from thence that I must not be a Protestant But that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence then this If you will leave England you must of necessity goe to Rome And yet with this wretched fallacy have I been sometimes abused my selfe and known many other poore soules seduced not only from their own Church and Religion but unto yours I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth that they may not alwaies be held captive under such miserable delusions 28 We see then how unsuccessefull you have been in making good your accusation with reasons drawn from the nature of the thing and which may be urged in common against all Protestants Let us come now to the Arguments of the other kinde which you build upon D. Potters own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schisme 29 But let the understanding Reader take with him but three or foure short remembrances and I dare say he shall find them upon examination not only
answerable but already answered The memorandums I would commend to him are these 30 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the Sinne of Schisme 31 That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome 32 That to leave the Church and to leave the externall Communion of a Church at least as D. Potter understands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God This little Armour if it be rightly placed I am perswaded will repell all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious 33 Ad § 13. 14. 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus applied to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madnesse moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men Whereunto one faire answer to let passe many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospell as it is not is impertinently applied to Luther and Lutherans Whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties And your not substituting Luther in stead of Donatus in the latter part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your selfe took notice of this exception of disparitie between Donatus and Luther 34 Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrine if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you doe understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaime as you doe then to dispute against it But these men you say must bee Heretiques because they separated from the Communion of the visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35 Ans. I might very justly desire some proofe of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the daies of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable then you can make your Negatiue We read in Scripture that Elias conceived There was none left besides himselfe in the whole kingdome of Israell who had not revolted from God and yet God himselfe assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgement touching his own time and his own countrey why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some countrey or other there were not alwaies some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and thinke it sufficient to tell you that if it bee true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must haue joyn'd with thē in the practise of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be schismaticall 36 Yes you reply to forsake the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formall proper sin of Schisme Ans. Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I bee bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that believe as I doe only in lawfull things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would haue them do or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Beleevers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonablenesse of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being schismaticall 37 Arg But the property of Schisme according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants haue this property Therefore they are Schismatiques 38 Ans. I deny the Syllogisme it is no better then this One Symptome of the Plague is a Feaver But such a man hath a Feaver Therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusiō which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptome of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they haue one property or one quality of Schismatiques And as in the former instance The man that hath one signe of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not haue the plague So these Protestants may haue something of Schismatiques and yet not be Schismatiques A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemnes a malefactor doe both sentence a man to death and so for the matter doe both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismatiques either alwaies or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same doe these Protestants yet are not Schismatiques The Reason because Schismatiques doe it and doe it without cause and Protestants haue cause for what they doe The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unlesse where they are excus'd by ignorance and expiated at least by a generall repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismatiques doe so yet universall affirmatiues are not converted and therefore it followes not by any good Logick that all that doe so when there is just cause for it must be Schismatiques The cause in this matter of separation is
all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants haue iust cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church Ans. Distinguish the quality of the Persons censur'd and this seeming repugance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly feare or hopes or some other voluntary sinne is the cause of their ignorance which I feare is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errours from Truth to want of capacity or default of instruction either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not or of those who would know the truth but all things considered cannot In respect of those that haue eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censurers seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the latter and the mildest will not be too milde So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flattered by the one nor uncharitably censur'd by the other 39 Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sinne of Schisme by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceiue your selfe to have proved Schismatiques And now load them further with the crime of Heresie For say you if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errours which yet you confesse were not fundamentall shall it not be much more damnable to liue in confraternity with these who defend an Errour of the fayling of the Church which in the Donatists you confesse to haue been properly Hereticall 40 Answ You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you onely or principally by reason of your Errours and Corruption For the true reason according to my third observation is not so much because you maintaine Errours and Corruptions as because you impose them and will allow your Communion to none but to those that will hold them with you and haue so ordered your Communion that either we must communicate with you in these things or nothing And for this very reason though it were granted that these Protestants held this doctrine which you impute to them And though this Errour were as damnable and as much against the Creed as you pretend Yet after all this this disparity between you and them might make it more lawfull for us to communicate with them then you because what they hold they hold to themselues and refuse not as you doe to communicate with them that hold the contrary 41 Thus we may answer your Argument though both your former Suppositions were granted But then for a second answer I am to tell you that there is no necessity of granting either of them For neither doe these Protestants hold the fayling of the Church from its being but only from its visibility which if you conceive all one then must you conceive that the starres fayle every day and the Sunne every night Neither is it certain that the doctrine of the Churches fayling is repugnant to the Creed For as the truth of the Article of the Remission of sinnes depends not upon the actuall remission of any mans sinnes but upon Gods readinesse and resolution to forgive the sins of all that believe and repent so that although unbeleef or impenitence should be universall and the Faithfull should absolutely fayle from the children of men and the sonne of man should finde no faith on the earth yet should the Article still continue true that God would forgive the sinnes of all that repent In like manner it is not certain that the truth of the Article of the Catholique Church depends upon the actuall existence of a Catholique Church but rather upon the right that the Church of Christ or rather to speak properly the Gospell of Christ hath to be universally believed And therefore the Article may bee true though there were no Church in the world In regard this notwithstanding it remaines still true that there ought to be a Church this Church ought to be Catholique For as of these two Propositions There is a Church in America and There should bee a Church in America The truth of the latter depends not upon the truth of the former so neither does it in these two There is a Church diffused all the world over and There should be a Church diffused all the world over 42 Thirdly if you understand by Errours not fundamentall such as are not damnable it is not true as I haue often told you that we confesse your errours not fundamentall 43 Lastly for your desire that I should here apply an authority of S. Cyprian alleaged in your next number I would haue done so very willingly but indeed I know not how to doe it for in my apprehensiō it hath no more to doe with your present businesse of proving it unlawfull to communicate with these men who hold the Church was not alwaies visible then In nova fert animus Besides I am here again to remember you that S. Cyprians words were they never so pertinent yet are by neither of the parts litigant esteemed any rule of faith And therefore the urging of them and such like authorities serves onely to make Books great and Controversies endlesse 44 Ad § 17. The next Section in three long leaues delivers us this short sense That those Protestants which say they have not left the Churches externall Communion but only her corruptions pretend to doe that which is impossible Because these corruptions were inherent in the Churches externall Communion and therefore he that forsakes them cannot but forsake this 45 Ans. But who are they that pretend they forsooke the Churches corruptions and not her externall communion Some there be that say they have not left the Church that is not ceased to be members of the Church but only left her corruptions some that they have not left the communion but the corruptions of it meaning the internall communion of it and conjunction with it by faith and obedience which disagree from the former only in the manner of speaking for he that is in the Church is in this kinde of communion with it and he that is not in this internall communion is not in the Church Some perhaps that they left not your externall communion in all things meaning that they left it not voluntarily being not fugitivi but fugati as being willing to joyne with you in any act of piety but were by you necessitated and constrained to doe so because you
would not suffer them to doe well with you unlesse they would doe ill with you Now to doe ill that you may doe well is against the will of God which to every good man is a high degree of necessity But for such Protestants as pretend that de facto they forsook your corruptions only and not your externall communion that is such as pretend to communicate with you in your confessions and Liturgies and participation of Sacraments I cannot but doubt very much that neither you nor I have ever met with any of this condition And if perhaps you were led into error by thinking that to leave the Church and to leave the externall communion of it was all one in sense signification I hope by this time you are disabus'd and beginne to understand that as a man may leave any fashion or custome of a Colledge and yet remain still a member of the Colledge so a man may possibly leave some opinion or practise of a Church formerly common to himselfe others and continue still a member of that Church Provided that what he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the essence of the Church consists Whereas peradventure this practise may be so involved with the externall communion of this Church that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this practise and not to leave the Churches externall communion 46 You will reply perhaps That the difficulty lies as well against those who pretend to forsake the Churches corruptions not the Church as against those who say they forsook the Churches corruptions and not her externall communion And that the reason is still the same because these supposed corruptions were inherent in the whole Church and therefore by like reason with the former could not be forsaken but if the whole Church were forsaken 47 Ans. A pretty Sophisme and very fit to perswade men that it is impossible for them to forsake any error they hold or any vice they are subject to either peculiar to themselves or in common with others Because forsooth they cannot forsake themselves and Vices and Errors are things inherent in themselves The deceit lies in not distinguishing between a Locall and a Morall forsaking of any thing For as it were an absurdity fit for the maintainers of Transubstantiation to defend that a man may Locally and properly depart from the Accidents of a subject and not from the subject it selfe So is it also against reason to deny that a man may by an usuall phrase of speech forsake any custome or quality good or bad either proper to himself or common to himselfe with any company and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himselfe Thus if all the Iesuits in the Society were given to write Sophistically yet you might leave this ill custome and yet not leave your Society If all the Citizens of a City were addicted to any vanity they might either all or some of them forsake it and yet not forsake the city If all the parts of a mans body were dirty or filthy nothing hinders but that all or some of them might clense themselves and yet continue parts of the body And what reason then in the world is there if the whole Visible Church were overcome with tares and weeds of superstitions and corruptions but that some members of it might reforme themselves and yet continue still true members of the body of the Church and not be made no members but the better by their Reformation Certainly it is so obvious sensible a Truth that this thing is possible that no man in his wits will be perswaded out of it with all the Quirks and Metaphysicks in the World Neither is this to say that a man may keep company with Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Q. Colledge Nor that a man can avoid the company of a sinner and at the same time be really present with the man who is the sinner which we leave to those Protestants of your invention who are so foolish as to pretend that a man may really separate himselfe from the Churches externall communion as she is corrupted and yet continue in that Churches externall Communion which in this externall Communion is corrupted But we that say only the whole Church being corrupted some parts of it might and did reforme themselves and yet might and did continue parts of the Church though separated from the externall communion of the other parts which would not reforme need not trouble our selves to reconcile any such repugnance For the case put by you of keeping D. Potters company and leaving the company of the Provost of Queens Colledge of leaving a sinners company and not the mans are nothing at all like ours But if you would speak to the point you must shew that D. Potter cannot leave being Provost of Q. Colledge without ceasing to be himselfe or that a sinner cannot leave his sinne without ceasing to be a man or that he that is part of any society cannot renounce any Vice of that society but he must relinquish the society If you would shew any of these things then indeed I dare promise you should find us apt enough to believe that the particular parts of the visible Church could not reforme themselves but they must of necessity become no parts of it But untill we see this done you must pardon us if we choose to believe sense rather then Sophistry 48 In this Paragraph you bring in the sentence of S. Cyprian whereto you refer'd us in the former but why in a cōtroversy of faith doe you cite any thing which is confessed on all hands not to be a rule of faith Besides in my apprehension this sentence of S. Cyprian is in this place and to this purpose meerely impertinent S. Cyprians words are The Church he speaks of the particular Church or Diocesse of Rome being one cannot be within and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawfull Ordination Novatianus is not in the Church And now having related the words I am only to remember the Reader that your businesse was to prove it impossible For a man to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church and then to request him to tell me whether as I said In nova fert animus had not been as much to the purpose 49 Toward the conclusion of this Section you number up your Victories and tell us That out of your discourse it remaineth cleere that this our chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internall Acts of the under standing with externoll deeds doth not distinguish between Schisme and Heresy and leaves this demonstrated against us that they Protestants divided themselves from the communion of the Visible Catholique Church because they conceived that she needed Reformation To which Triumphs if any reply be needfull then briefly thus We doe not
change the state of the Question but you mistake it For the Question was not whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and continue in her externall communion which we confesse impossible because these corruptions were in her communion But the Question was whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and not the Church but continue still the Members of it And to this Question there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable 50 We doe not confound internall Acts of understanding with externall deeds but acknowledge as you would have us that we cannot as matters now stand separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your Externall communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in externall Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholique Church 51 We are not to learn the difference between Schisme Heresy for Heresy we conceive an obstinate defence of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismatiques for refusing to joyne with you in the profession of these Errors and the practise of these corruptions And therefore you must free your selves from Error or us from Schisme 52 Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the externall communion of the Visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made ourselves out-lawes from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of your separation from the externall communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53 That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schisme we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unlesse it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors superstitions and impieties will not justify our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reforme themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you referre us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alleaging them you have gain'd little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Iudges of this controversy their sentence is against you much rather then for you 54 Lastly whereas you desire D. Potter to remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe and pretend that you have shewed that Luther did so The Doctor remembers his words very well and hath no reason to be ashamed of them Only he desires you to remember that hereafter you doe not confound as hitherto you have done departing from the Church i. e. ceasing to be a member of it with departing from the Churches externall communion and then he is perswaded it will appeare to you that against Luther and his followers you have said many things but shewed nothing 55 But the Church Vniversall remaining the Church Vniversall according to D. Potter may fall into error And from hence it cleerely followes that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church Ans. The reason of this consequence which you say is so cleere truly I cannot possibly discern But the conclusion inferr'd methinkes is evident of it selfe and therefore without proofe I grant it I meane that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Catholique Church corrupted and to retain externall communion with the Catholique Church But what use you can make of it I doe not understand Vnlesse you will pretend that to say a man may forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church is all one as to say he may forsake the Churches externall Communion and not forsake it If you mean so sure you mistake the meaning of Protestants when they say They forsook not the Church but her corruptions For in saying so they neither affirme nor deny that they forsooke the externall communion of the Church nor speake at all of it But they mean only that they ceased not to be still members of the Church though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole Church formerly did believe and practise And as for the externall Communion of the Visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of some observances in which the whole visible Church before thē did communicate But this we say they did without Schisme because they had cause to do so and no man can have cause to be a Schismatique 56 But your Argument you conceive will bee more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans. The ground of this is no way certain nor here sufficiently proved For whereas you say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much lesse extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Neither secondly to suppose a Visible Church before Luther which did not erre is it to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnlesse you will have us believe that May be and Must be is all one and that all which may be true is true which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so and you would not
make so bad Arguments unlesse you will pretend you cannot make better Nor thirdly is it to contradict these words The Church may not hope to triumph over all error till she be in Heaven For to triumph over error is to be secure from it to be out of danger of it not to be obnoxious to it Now a Church may be free from error and yet not secure from it and consequently in this sense not triumph over it Fourthly whereas you say it evacuateth the bragge of Protestants that Luther reformed the whole Church perhaps though I know not who they be that say so by a frequent synecdoche they may mean by the whole the greatest and most illustrious part of it the lustre whereof did much obscure the other though it were not wholly invisible Besides if their bragge be evacuated as you call it let it be so I see no harme will come of it Lastly whereas you say that supposing a visible pure Church Luther must be a Schismatique who separated from all visible Churches I tell you if you will suppose a visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoyned himselfe to it Not indeed in place wich was not necessary not in externall communion which was impossible but by the Vnion of faith and charity Vpon these grounds I say that the ground of this Argument is no way made certaine yet because it is not manifestly false I am content to let it passe And for ought I see it is very safe for me to doe so for you build nothing upon it which I may not fairely grant For what doe you conclude from hence but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the externall communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the externall communion of the Catholique Church Well let this also be granted what will come of it What that Luther must be a Schismatique By no meanes For not every separation but only a causeles separation from the communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismaticall Hereunto may be added that though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the externall communion of it But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted and still would be so and forsook not but only reformed another Part which Part they themselves were and I suppose you will not goe about to perswade us that they forsook themselves or their own communion And if you urge that they joyned themselves to no other part therefore they separated from the whole I say it followes not in as much as themselves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore could no more separate from the whole then from themselves Thus though there were no part of the people of Rome to whom the Plebeians joyned themselves when they made their Secession into the Aventine Hill yet they divided themselves from the Patricians only and not from the whole people because themselves were a part of this people and they divided not from themselves 57 Ad § 18. In the 18. § you prove that which no man denies that corruption in manners yeelds no sufficient cause to leave the Church yet sure it yeelds sufficient cause to cast them out of the Church that are after the Churches publique admonition obstinate in notorious impieties Neither doth the cutting off such men from the Church lay any necessity upon us either to goe out of the world or out of the Church but rather puts these men out of the Church into the world where we may converse with them freely without scandall to the Church Our Blessed Saviour foretold you say that there should be in the Church tares with choice corne Look again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the world and therefore neither doe You obey our Saviours command Let both grow up till the harvest who teach it to be lawfull to roote these tares such are Heretiques out of the world neither doe Protestants disobey it if they eject manifest Heresies and notorious sinners out of the Church 58 Ad § 19. in the 19. you are so curteous as to suppose corruptions in your doctrine and yet undertake to prove that neither could they afford us any sufficient cause or colourable necessity to depart from them Your reason is because damnable errors there were none in your Church by D. Potters confession neither can it be damnable in respect of errour to remain in any Churches communion whose errors are not damnable For if the error be not damnable the belief thereof cannot Ans. D. Potter confesseth no such matter but only that he hopes that your errors though in themselves sufficiently damnable yet by accident did not damne all that held them such he meanes and saies as were excusably ignorant of the Truth and amongst the number of their unknown sinnes repented daily of their unknown errors The truth is he thinks as ill of your errors and their desert as you doe of ours only he is not so peremptory and presumptuous in judging your persons as you are in judging ours but leaves them to stand or fall to their own Master who is infinitely mercifull and therefore will not damne them for meere errors who desire to find the truth and cannot and withall infinitely just and therefore is it to be feared will not pardon them who might easily have come to the knowledge of the truth and either through Pride or obstinacy or negligence would not 59 To your minor also I answer almost in your own words § 42. of this Chap. I thank you for your curteous supposall that your Church may erre and in recompence thereof will doe you a charity by putting you in mind into what Labyrinths you cast your selfe by supposing that the Church may erre in some of her Proposalls and yet denying it lawfull for any man though he know this which you suppose to oppose her judgement or leave her communion Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny that which he knowes true No that you will not for them that doe so you your selfe have pronounced A. damned Crâ—w of dissembling Sycophants Or would you have him continue in your Communion and yet professe your Church to erre This you your selves have made to him impossible Or would you have him beleeve those things true which together with him you have supposed to be Errors This in such a one as is assur'd or perswaded of that which you here suppose that your Church doth erre and such only we say are obliged to forsake your communion is as Schoolemen speak Implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plain that one word destroieth another as if one should say a living dead man
Book Besides any private man who truly believes the Scripture and seriously endeavours to know the will of God and to doe it is as secure as the visible Church more secure then your Church from the danger of erring in fundamentalls for it is impossible that any man so qualified should fall into any error which to him will prove damnable For God requires no more of any man to his Salvation but his true endeavour to be saved Lastly abiding in your Churches Communion is so farre from securing me or any man from damnable error that if I should abide in it I am certain I could not be saved For abide in it I cannot without professing to believe your entire doctrine true professe this I cannot but I must lye perpetually and exulcerate my conscience And though your errors were not in themselves damnable yet to resist the known Truth and to continue in the profession of known errors and false hoods is certainly a capitall sinne and of great affinity with the sinne which shall never be forgiven 95 But neither is the Church of Protestants perfectly free from errors and corruptions so the Doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse by saying they are not fundamentall as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed not to be fundamentall And what man of Iudgement will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one Ans. And yet you your selfe make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to have some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgement continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted Especially when this Church supposed to be corrupted requires the beliefe and profession of her supposed corruptions as the condition of her Communion which this Church confessedly corrupted doth not What man of judgement will think it any disparagement to his judgement to preferre the better though not simply the best before that which is starke naught To preferre indifferent good health before a diseased and corrupted state of Body To preferre a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-runne with weeds and thornes And therefore though Protestants have some Errors yet seeing they are neither so great as yours nor impos'd with such tyranny nor maintained with such obstinacy he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgement to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to have some corruptions it may well be presum'd that he hath but little judgement For as for your pretence that yours are confessed not to be fundamentall it is an affected mistake as already I have often told you 66 Ad § 22. But D. Potter saies it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capitall dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sinne and error till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secur'd from all capitall dangers which can arise only from error in fundamentall points Why were not our first Reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of apernitious greedinesse of more then enough Ans. I have already shewed sufficiently how capitall danger may arise from errors though not fundamentall I adde now that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough according to that of the Gospell to whom much is given of him much shall be required That the same error may be not capitall to those who want meanes of finding the truth and capitall to others who have meanes and neglect to use them That to continue in the profession of error discovered to be so may be damnable though the error be not so These I presume are reasons enough and enough why the first Reformers might think and justly that not enough for themselves which yet to some of their Predecessors they hope might be enough This very Argument was objected to S. Cyprian upon another occasion and also by the British Quartodecimans to the maintainers of the Doctrine of your Church and by both this very answer was returned and therefore I cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it 67 But if as the Doctor saies no Church may hope to triumph over all error ti◠she be in heaven then we must either grant that errors not fundamentall cannot yeeld sufficient cause to forsake the Church or you must affirme that all Communities may and ought to be forsaken Answ. The Doctor does not say that no Church may hope to be free from all error either pernitious or any way noxious But that no Church may hope to be secure from all error simply for this were indeed truly totriumph over all But then we say not that the communion of any Church is to be forsaken for errors unfundamentall unlesse it exact withall either a dissimulation of the being noxious or a Profession of them against the dictate of conscience if they be meere errors This if the Church does as certainly yours doth then her communion is to be forsaken rather then the sinne of hypocrisy to be committed Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such errors there is no necessity because they erre to themselves doe not under pain of Excommunication exact the profession of their errors 68 But the Church may not be left by reason of sinne therefore neither by reason of errors not fundamentall in as much as both sinne and error are impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven Ans. The reason of the consequence does not appear to mee But I answer to the Antecedent Neither for sinne nor errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and injoyne them but if she doe as the Roman does then we must forsake men rather then God leave the Churches communion rather then commit sinne or professe known errors to be divine truths For the Prophet EZechiel hath assured us that to say the Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a great sinne and a high presumption be the matter never so small 69 Ad § 23. But neither the Quality nor the number of your Churches errors could warrant our forsaking of it Not the Quality because we suppose them not Fundamentall Not the number because the foundation is strong enough to support them Ans. Here againe you vainely suppose that we conceive your errors in themselves not damnable Though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable but to say they are pardonable is indeed to suppose them damnable Secondly though the errors of your Church did not warrant our departure yet your Tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification For this laies necessity on us either to forsake your company or to professe what we know to be false 70 Our Blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we
forgive a private offender seventy seven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of Trespasses and thou how dare we alleage his command that we must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall Ans. He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often will not allow us for his sake to sinne with him so much as once He will have us doe any thing but sinne rather then offend any man But his will is also that we offend all the World rather then sinne in the least matter And therefore though his will were and it were in our power which yet is false to pardon the errors of an erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should erre with the Church or if we doe not that we should against conscience professe the errors of it 71 Ad § 24. But Schismatiques from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the errors of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schisme Ans. True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we doe as a murtherer can cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so truly nor so justly The question is not what may be pretended but what can bee proved by Schismatiques They may object errors to other Churches as well as we doe to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appeares not To the Priests and elders of the Iewes imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Iohn answered they must obey God rather then men The three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give me now any factious Hypocrite who makes religion the pretence and cloke of his Rebellion and who sees not that such a one may answer for himselfe in those very formall words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny but this answer was good in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs though it were obnoxious to be abused by Traitors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismatiques may make use of this Answer therefore all that doe make use of it are Schismatiques But moreover it is to be observed that the chiefe part of our defence that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72 But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schismes and therefore it must not be forsaken Ans. We must not doe evill to avoid evill neither are all courses presently lawfull by which inconveniences may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chiefe Mufty of the Turkes it is apparent there would be no divisions yet unity is not to be purchased at so deare a rate It were a thing much to be desired that there were no divisions yet difference of opinions touching points controverted is rather to be chosen then unanimous concord in damned errors As it is better for men to goe to heaven by diverse waies or rather by divers paths of the same way then in the same path to goe on peaceably to hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas 73 But there can be no iust cause to forsake the Church so the Doctor grants who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errors Ans. There can be no just cause to forsake the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is to cease being a member of the Church This I grant if it will doe you any service But that there can be no just cause to forsake the Church in some things or to speak more properly to forsake some opinions and practices which some true Church retaines and defends this I deny and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirmes it 74 Ad § 26. 27. What prodigious doctrines say you are these Those Protestants who belieue that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others c. Prodigious doctrines indeed But who I pray are they that teach them Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schisme who left your Church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points What Protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plaine precepts of Christ both Ceremoniall in mutilating the Communion and Morall in points of superstition Idolatry and most bloody tyranny which is without question to erre in necessary matters Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schisme for holding so if he should he should call himselfe a Schismatique Only he saies such if there be any such as affirm that ignorant soules among you who had no means to know the truth cannot possibly be saved that their wisdome and charity cannot be justified Now you your selfe haue plainly affirmed That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may bee saved and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say that Protestants erre in no points necessary to salvation For that may be in it selfe and in ordinary course where there are meanes of knowledge necessary which to a man invincibly ignorant will proue not necessary Again where doth D. Potter suppose as you make him that there were other Protestants who believed that your Church had no errours Or where does hee say they did well to forsake her upon this ridiculous reason because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation Doe you think us so stupid as that wee cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter sayes and that which you make him say He vindicates Protestants from Schisme two waies The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismatiques never haue because they that haue it are no Schismatiques For schisme is alwaies a causelesse separation The other is because they did not joyn with their separation an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves as the manner of Schismatiques is Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation you make him make the cause of it and the motiue to it And whereas he saies though we separate from you in some things yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the body of Christ and therefore are not Schismatiques You make him say most absurdly we did well to forsake you because we iudged you a member of the body of Christ. Iust as if a brother should leaue his Brothers company in some ill courses and should say
to him Herein I forsake you yet I leave you not absolutely for I acknowledge you still to be my brother and shall use you as a brother And you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said I leaue your company in these ill courses and I doe well to doe so because you are my Brother so making that the cause of his leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75 But you say The very reason for which hee acquitteth himselfe from Schisme is because he holds that the Church which they forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ. Ans. This is true But can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawfull matter to his lawfull Soveraign should say to him herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebell because I acknowledge you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawfull should not he be an egregious sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawfull Soveraign Certainly hee that joynes this acknowledgment with his necessitated disobedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of his disobedience doth ill Vrge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceiue that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to bee the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allowes you to be a Part of it 76 And whereas you pretend to finde such unspeakable comfort here in that we cannot cleare our selues from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too deare For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damne men for errour who were without their owne fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who haue eyes to see and will not see who haue cares to heare and will not heare this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperatly inconsistent Nor to say wee must be damn'd unlesse you may be saved but that we assure our selues if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that wee hope and I tell you again Spes est reiincertae nomen that some of you may possibly bee the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77 For our Brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that doe so unlesse you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you doe then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errors in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78 But Schisme consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must professe you agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans. Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamentall points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schisme divide from that Church which erres in any point of faith Fundamentall or otherwise if she require the profession of this Errour among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the latter I deny the syllogisme as having manifestly foure termes and being cosen German to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79 But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which haue understanding means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to bee flattered with hope of salvation they doe cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques But D. Potter doth the former therefore is a Schismatique Ans. No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and meanes to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80 Ad § 28. 29. Whereas D. Potter saies There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of our selves this you â—ay is a quaint subtilty by which all Schisme and sinne may be as well excused It seems then in your judgement that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reforme themselves But then me thinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schisme and that to this day never any Theefe or Murtherer should haue been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himselfe was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up altar against altar because having fallen in persecutioÌ„ they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the world because all the world would not excommunicate them who were accused onely and not convicted to haue been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips infirmity of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order Ceremony or for some errour in doctrine neither pernitious nor hurtfull to faith or piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are
disease it being impossible that should be mortall and out of it no hope of escaping others like that for which he forsook the first infected Company I appeale now to any indifferent judge whether these cases be the same or neere the same with D. Potters Whether this be faire and ingenuous dealing in stead of his two instances which plainly shewed it possible in other societies and consequently in that of the Church to leave the faults of a society and not leave being of it to foist in two others clean crosse to the Doctors purpose of men under colour of faults abandoning the society wherein they lived I know not what others may think of this dealing but to me this declining D. Potters cases and conveying others into their place is a great assurance that as they were put by him you could say nothing to them 85 But that no suspicion of tergiversation may be fastned upon me I am content to deale with you a little at your own weapons Put the case then though not just as you would have it yet with as much â—avour to you as in reason you can expect That a Monastery did observe her substantiall vowes and all Principall statutes but yet did generally practise and also enjoyne the violation of some lesser yet obliging observances and had done so time out of mind And that some inferiour Monkes more conscientious then the rest discovering this abuse should first with all earnestnesse sollicite their Superiours for a generall and orderly reformation of these though small and veniall corruptions yet corruptions But finding they hop'd and labour'd in vain to effect this should reforme these faults in themselves and refuse to joyne in the practice of them with the rest of their Conâ—raternity and persisting resolutely in such a refusall should by their Superiours be cast out of their Monastery and being not to be re-admitted without a promise of remitting from their stiffenesse in these things and of condescending to others in the practice of their small faults should choose rather to continue exiles then to re-enter upon such conditions I would know whether you would condemne such men of Apostacy from the Order Without doubt if you should you would finde the streame of your Casuists against you and besides involve S. Paul in the same condemnation who plainly tels that we may not doe the least evill that we may doe the greatest good Put case again you should be part of a Society universally infected with some disease and discovering a certain remedy for this disease should perswade the whole company to make use of it but finde the greatest part of them so farre in love with their disease that they were resolved to keepe it and besides should make a decree that whosoever would leave it should leave their company Suppose now that your selfe and some few others should notwithstanding their injunction to the contrary free your selves from this disease and thereupon they should absolutely forsake and reject you I would know in this case who deserves to be condemned whether you of uncharitable desertion of your company or they of a tyrannicall peevishnesse And if in these cases you will as I verily believe you will acquit the inferiors and condemne the superiors absolve the minor part and condemne the major then can you with no reason condemne Proteâ—tants for choosing rather to be ejected from the communion of the Roman Church then with her to persist as of necessity they were to doe if they would continue in her communion in the profession of Errors though not destructive of salvation yet hindering edification and in the Practice or at least approbation of many suppose not mortall but veniall corruptions 86 Thirdly that you censure too partially the corrupt estate of your Church in comparing it to a Monastery which did confessedly observe their substantiall vowes and all Principall Statutes of their order and moreover was secured by an infallible assistance for the avoiding of all substantiall corruptions for of your Church we confesse no such matter but say plainly That she not only might fall into substantiall corruptions but did so that she did not only generally violate but of all the members of her communion either in act or approbation require and exact the violation of many substantiall lawes of Christ both Ceremoniall and Morall which though we hope it was pardonable in them who had not meanes to know their errour yet of its own nature and to them who did or might have known their errour was certainly damnable And that it was not the tything of Mint and Annise and Cummin the neglect whereof we impute unto you but the neglect of judgement justice and the weightier matters of the Law 87 Fourthly I am to represent unto you that you use Protestants very strangely in comparing them to a company who all were known to be led to their pretended reformation not with an intent of Reformation but with some other sinister intention which is impossible to be known of you and therefore to judge so is against Christian Charity and common equity and to such a Company as acknowledge that themselves as soone as they were gone out from the Monastery that deferred to reforme must not hope to be free from those or the like Errors and Corruptions for which they left their Brethren seeing this very hope and nothing else moved them to leave your Communion and this speech of yours so farre as it concernes the same errors plainly destroies itselfe For how can they possibly fall into the same errors by forsaking your Communion which that they may forsake they doe forsake your Communion And then for other errors of the like nature and quality or more enormous then yours though they deny it not possible but by their negligence and wickednesse they may fall into them yet they are so farre from acknowledging that they have no hope to avoid this mischiefe that they proclaime to all the world that it is most prone and easy to doe so to all those that feare God and love the truth and hardly possible for them to doe otherwise without supine negligence and extream impiety 88 To fit the reddition of your perverted Simile to the Proposition of it you tell us that we teach that for all fundamentall points the Church is secured from errour I Answer Fundamentall errors may signify either such as are repugnant to Gods command and so in their own nature damnable though to those which out of invincible ignorance practise them not unpardonable or such as are not only meritoriously but remedilessely pernitious and destructive of Salvation We hope that yours and the Greeke other Churches before the Reformation had not so farre apostated from Christ as to be guilty of errors of the latter sort We say that not only the Catholique Church but every Particular true Church so long as it continues a Church is secur'd from Fundamentall errors of this kind but secur'd not absolutely by any
promise of divine assistance which being not ordinarily irresistible but temper'd to the nature of the Receivers may be neglected and therefore withdrawn but by the Repugnance of any errour in this sense fundamentall to the essence and nature of a Church So that to speak properly not any set known company of men is secur'd that though they neglect the meanes of avoiding error yet certainly they shall not erre which were necessary for the constitution of an infallible guide of faith But rather they which know what is meant by a Church are secur'd or rather certain that a Church remaining a Church cannot fall into fundamentall error because when it does so it is no longer a Church As they are certain that men cannot become unreasonable creatures because when they doe so they are no longer men But for fundamentall errors of the former sort which yet I hope will warrant our departure from any Communion infected with them and requiring the Profession of them from such fundamentall errors we doe not teach so much as that the Church Catholique much lesse which only were for your purpose that your Church hath any protection or security but know for a certain that many errors of this nature had prevailed against you and that a vain presumption of an absolute divine assistance which yet is promised but upon conditions made both your present errors incurable and exposed you to the imminent danger of more greater This therefore is either to abuse what we say or to impose falsely upon us what we say not And to this you presently adde another manifest falsehood viz. that we say that no particular person or Church hath any promise of assistance in points fundamentall Whereas crosse to this in diameter there is no Protestant but holds and must hold that there is no particular Church no nor person but hath promise of divine assistance to lead them into all necessary truth if they seeke it as they should by the meanes which God hath appointed And should we say otherwise we should contrary plain Scripture which assures us plainly that every one that seeketh findeth and every one that asketh receiveth and that if we being evill can give good gifts to our children much more shall our heavenly Father give his spirit to them that aske it and that if any man want wisdome especially spirituall wisdome he is to aske of God who giveth to all men and upbraideth not 89 You obtrude upon us thirdly That when Luther began he being but one opposed himselfe to all as well Subjects as Superiors Ans. If he did so in the cause of God it was heroically done of him This had been without hyperbolizing Mundus contra Athanasium and Athanasius contra Mundum neither is it impossible that the whole world should so farre lye in wickednesse as S. Iohn speakes that it may be lawfull and noble for one man to oppose the world But yet were we put to our oathes we should surely not testify any such thing for you for how can we say properly and without streining that he opposed himselfe to All unlesse we could say also that All opposed themselves to him And how can we say so seeing the world can witnesse that so many thousands nay millions followed his standard as soone as it was advanced 90 But none that lived immediatly before him thought or spake as he did This is first nothing to the purpose The Church was then corrupted and sure it was no dishonour to him to beginne the Reformation In the Christian warfare every man ought to strive to be foremost Secondly it is more then you can justify For though no man before him lifted up his voice like a trumpet as Luther did yet who can assure us but that many before him both thought and spake in lower voice of petitions and remonstrances in many points as he did 91 Fourthly and lastly whereas you say that many chiefe learned Protestants are forced to confesse the Antiquity of your Doctrine and Practise I Answer of many Doctrines and Practises of yours this is not true not pretended to be true by those that have dealt in this Argument Search your storehouse M. Brerely who hath travailed as farre in this Northwest discovery as it was possible for humane industry and when you have done so I pray informe me what confessions of Protestants have you for the Antiquity of the Doctrine of the Communion in one kinde the lawfulnesse and expedience of the Latine service For the present use of Indulgences For the Popes power in Temporalties over Princes For the picturing of the Trinity For the lawfulnesse of the worship of Pictures For your Beades and Rosary and Ladies Psalter and in a word for your whole worship of the B. Virgin For your oblations by way of consumption therefore in the quality of Sacrifices to the Virgin Mary other Saints For your saying of Pater-nosters Creeds to the honour of Saints and of Ave-Maries to the honour of other Saints besides the Blessed Virgin For infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome For your prohibiting the Scripture to be read publikely in the Church in such languages as all may understand For your Doctrine of the Blessed Virgins immunity from actuall sinne and for your doctrine and worship of her immaculate conception For the necessity of Auricular Confession For the necessity of the Priests Intention to obtain benefit by any of your Sacraments And lastly not to trouble my selfe with finding out more for this very doctrine of Licentiousnesse That though a man live and dye without the practise of Christian vertues and with the habits of many damnable sinnes unmortified yet if he in the last moment of life have any sorrow for his sinnes and joyne confession with it certainly he shall be saved Secondly they that confesse some of your doctrines to have been the Doctrine of the Fathers may be mistaken being abused by may words and phrases of the Fathers which have the Roman sound when they are farre from the sense Some of them I am sure are so I will name Goulartius who in his Commentaries on S. Cyprian's 35. Ep. grants that the sentence Heresies haue sprung c. quoted by you § 36. of this Chapter was meant of Cornelius whereas it will be very plain to any attentive reader that S. Cyprian speaks there of himselfe Thirdly though some Protestants confesse some of your doctrine to be Ancient yet this is nothing so long as it is evident even by the confession of all sides that many errors I instance in that of the Millenaries and the communicating of Infants were more ancient Not any antiquity therefore unlesse it be absolute and primitive is a certain signe of true Doctrine For if the Church were obnoxious to corruption as we pretend it was who can possibly warrant us that part of this corruption might not get in and prevaile in the 5. or 4. or 3. or 2. age Especially seeing the A-Apostles
that they left them Therefore Luther and his followers cannot deny but that they left the visible Church Where me thinks you prove little but take for granted that which is one of the greatest Questions amongst us that is That the Company which Luther left was the whole Visible Church whereas you know we say it was but a part of it and that corrupted and obstinate in her corruptions Indeed that Luther and his followers left off the Practice of those Corruptions wherein the whole Visible Church did communicate formerly which I meant when I acknowledg'd aboue that they forsook the externall Communion of the Visible Church or that they left that part of the Visible church in her corruptions which would not be reformed These things if you desire I shall be willing to grant and that by a Synecdoche of the whole for the part he might be said to forsake the Visible Church that is a part of it and the greater part But that properly speaking he forsook the whole Visible Church I hope you will excuse me if I grant not this untill you bring better proofe of it then your former similitude And my Reason is his because he and his Followers were a part of this Church and ceased not to be so by their Reformation Now he and his followers certainly forsook not themselves Therefore not every part of the Church therefore not the whole Church But then if you speak of D. Potters cases according as he put them and answer not your owne Arguments when you make shew of answering his me thinks it should not be so unreasonable as you make it for the Persons he speaks of to deny that they left the communities whereof they were Members For example That the Monkes of S. Benets Order make one Body whereof their severall Monasteries are severall members I presume it will be easily granted Suppose now that all these Monasteries being quite out of Order some 20. or 30. of them should reforme themselves the rest persisting still in their irregular couses were it such a mon. strous impudence as you make it for these Monasteries which we suppose reformed to deny that they forsook their Order or Community whereof they were parts In my Opinion it is no such matter Let the world judge Againe whereas the Dr saies that in a Society of men Vniversally infected with some disease they that should free themselues from the common disease could not therefore be said to separate from the Society It is very strange to me that you should say he speaks very strangely Truly Sr I am extreamly deceaved if his words be not plain English and plain sense and containe such a manifest Truth as cannot be denyed with modesty nor gone about to be proved without vanity For whatsoever is proved must be proved by something more evident Now what can be more evident then this That if some whole Families were taken with Agues if the Father of this Family should free himselfe from his that he should not therefore deservedly be thought to abandon and desert his Family But say you if they doe not separate themselves from the Society of the wicked persons how doe they free themselves from the common disease Doe they at the same time remaine in the company and yet depart from those infected creatures Me thinks a Writer of Controversies should not be ignorant how this may be done without any such difficulty But if you doe not know I 'le tell you There is no necessity they should leaue the company of these infected persons at all much lesse that they should at once depart from it and remaine with it which I confesse were very difficult But if they will free themselues from their disease let them stay where they are and take physick Or if you would be better informed how this strange thing may be done learne from your selfe They may free their own persons from the common disease yet so that they remain still in the company infected eating and drinking with them c. Which are your own words within foure or fiue lines after this plainly shewing that your mistaking D. Potters meaning your wondring at his words as at some strange monsters was all this while affected and that you are conscious to your selfe of perverting his Argument that you may seem to say something when indeed you say nothing Whereas therefore you adde we must then say that they separate themselues from the persons though it be by occasion of the disease I assure you good Sir you must not doe so at any hand for then you alter spoile D. Potters case quite and fight not with his reason but your own shadow For the instance of a man freeing himselfe from the disease of his company and not leaving his company is very fit to proue by the parity of reason that it is very possible a man may leaue the corruptions of a Church and not leaue the Church that is not cease to be a member of it But yours of a man leaving his company by occasion of their disease hath no analogy at all with this businesse 95 But Luther his followers did not continue in the cōpany of those from whose diseases they pretend to free themselves Very true neither was it said they did so There is no necessity that that which is compared to another thing should agree with it in all things it is sufficient if it agree in that wherein it is compared A man freeing himselfe from the common disease of a society and yet continuing a part of it is here compared to Luther and his followers freeing themselues from the corruptions of the visible Church continuing a part of the Church As for accompanying the other parts of it in all things it was neither necessary nor without destroying our supposition of their forsaking the corruptions of the Church possible Not necessary for they may be parts of the Church which doe not joyne with other parts of it in all observances Nor possible for had he accompanied them in all things he had not freed himselfe from the common corruptions 96 But they indeavoured to force the society whereof they were parts to be healed and reformed as they were and if it refused they did when they had power driue them away even their superiours both Spirituall and Temporall as is notorious The proofes hereof are wanting and therefore I might deferre my answer untill they were produced yet take this before hand If they did so then herein in my opinion they did amisse for I haue learnt from the ancient Fathers of the Church that nothing is more against Religion then to force Religion of S. Paul the weapons of the Christian warfare are not carnall And great reason For humane violence may make men counterfeit but cannot make them believe is therefore fit for nothing but to breed forme without Atheisme within Besides if this meanes of bringing men to embrace any Religion were
generally used as if it may be justly used in any place by those that haue power and think they haue truth certainly they cannot with reason deny but that it may bee used in every place by those that haue power as well as they and think they haue truth as wel as they what could follow but the maintenance perhaps of truth but perhaps onely of the profession of it in one place the oppression of it in a hundred What will follow from it but the preservation peradventure of unity but peradventure only of uniformity in particular States Churches but the immortalizing the greater and more lamentable divisions of Christendome and the world And therefore what can follow from it but perhaps in the judgement of carnall policie the temporall benefit and tranquillity of temporall States and Kingdomes but the infinit prejudice if not the desolation of the kingdome of Christ And therefore it well becomes thē who haue their portions in this life who serve no higher State then that of England or Spain or France nor this neither any further then they may serue themselves by it who thinke of no other happinesse but the preservation of their own fortunes and tranquillity in this world who think of no other meanes to preserve States but humane power and Machiavillian policie and belieue no other Creed but this Regi aut Civitati imperium habenti nihil iniustum quod utile Such men as these it may become to maintaine by worldly power and violence their State instrument Religion For if all be vain and false as in their judgement it is the present whatsoever is better then any because it is already setled and alteration of it may draw with it change of States and the change of State the subversion of their fortune But they that are indeed servants and lovers of Christ of truth of the Church and of man-kinde ought with all courage to oppose themselves against it as a common enemy of all these They that know there is a King of Kings and Lord of Lords by whose will and pleasure Kings and Kingdomes stand and fall they know that to no King or state any thing can be profitable which is unjust and that nothing can be more evidently unjust then to force weak men by the profession of a religion which they believe not to loose their owne eternall happinesse out of a vain and needlesse feare least they may possibly disturb their temporall quietnesse There is no danger to any state from any mans opinion unlesse it be such an opinion by which disobedience to authority or impiety is taught or licenc'd which sort I confesse may justly be punished as well as other faults or unlesse this sanguinary doctrine bee joyn'd with it that it is lawfull for him by humane violence to enforce others to it Therefore if Protestants did offer violence to other mens consciences and compell them to embrace their Reformation I excuse them not much lesse if they did so to the sacred Persons of Kings and those that were in authority over them who ought to be so secur'd from violence that even their unjust and tyrannous violence though it may be avoided according to that of our Saviour When they persecute you in one Citty fly into another yet may it not be resisted by opposing violence against it Protestants therefore that were guilty of this crime are not to be excused and blessed had they been had they chosen rather to be Martyrs then murderers and to dye for their religion rather then to fight for it But of all the men in the world you are the most unfit to accuse them hereof against whō the soules of the Martyrs from under the Altar cry much lowder then against all their other Persecutors together Who for these many ages together haue daily sacrificed Hecatombes of innocent Christians under the name of Heretiques to your blind zeal and furious superstition Who teach plainly that you may propagate your Religion whensoever you haue power by deposing of Kings and invasion of Kingdomes think when you kill the adversaries of it you doe God good service But for their departing corporally from them whom mentally they had forsaken For their forsaking the externall Cōmunion company of that part of the unreformed part of the Church in their superstitions impieties thus much of your accusation we embrace glory in it And say though some Protestants might offend in the manner or the degree of their separation yet certainly their separation it selfe was not Schismaticall but innocent and not only so but just and necessary And as for your obtruding upon D. Potter that he should say There neither was nor could be iust cause to doe so no more then to depart from Christ himselfe I haue shewed divers times already that you sdeal very injuriously with him confounding together Departing from the Church and Departing from some generall opinions and practises which did not constitute but vitiate not make the Church but marre it For though he saies that which is most true that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church that is to cease being a member of the Church no more then to depart from Christ himself in as much as these are not divers but the same thing yet he no where denies but there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from some opinions and practises of your Church nay of the Catholique Church And therefore you doe vainly to infer that Luther and his followers for so doing were Schismatiques 97 Ad § 35. I answer in a word that neither are Optatus his sayings rules of Faith and therefore not fit to determine Controversies of Faith And then that Majorinus might well be a Schismatique for departing from Ca cilianus and the Chayre of Cyprian Peter without cause and yet Luther and his followers who departed from the Communion of the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of their own Diocesse be none because they had just and necessary cause of their departure For otherwise they must haue continued in the profession of known Errours and the practise of manifest corruptions 98 Ad § 36. In the next Section you tell us that Christ our Lord gaue S. Peter his successors authority over his whole Militant Church And for proof hereof you first referre us to Brerely citing exactly the places of such cheefe Protestants as haue confessed the antiquity of this point Where first you fall into the Fallacy which is called Ignoratio elenchi or mistaking the Question for being to proue this point true you onely prove it ancient Which to what purpose is it when both the parties litigant are agreed that many errors were held by many of the ancient Doctors much more ancient then any of those who are pretended to be confessed by Protestants to haue held with you in this matter and when those whom you haue to doe with and whom it is vain to dispute against but
Church were to be the Foundations of it and accordingly are so called in Scripture And therefore as in a building it is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations So it may be in the Church that any other Apostle should succeed the first 101 Ad § 37. The next Paragraph I might well passe over as having no Argument in it For there is nothing in it but two sayings of S. Austine which I have great reason to esteeme no Argument untill you will promise me to grant whatsoever I shall prove by two sayings of S. Austine But moreover the second of these sentences seemes to me to imply the contradiction of the first For to say That the Sacriledge of Schisme is eminent when there is no cause of separation implyes to my understanding that there may be a cause of Separation Now in the first he saies plainly That this is impossible Neither doth any reconciliation of his wordes occurre to me but only this that in the former he speaks upon supposition that the Publique service of God where in men are to communicate is unpolluted and no unlawfull thing practised in their communion which was so true of their communion that the Donatists who separated did not deny it And to make this Answer no improbable evasion it is observable out of S. Austine and Optatus that though the Donatists at the beginning of their Separation pretended no cause for it but only that the men from whom they separated were defiled with the contagion of Traditors yet afterwards to make the continuance of it more justifiable they did invent and spread abroad this calumny against Catholiques that they set pictures upon their Altars which when S. Austine comes to Answer he does not deny the possibility of the thing for that had been to deny the Catholique Church to be made up of men all which had free will to evill and therefore might possibly agree in doeing it and had he denyed this the Action of after Ages had been his refutation Neither does he say as you would have done that it was true they placed pictures there and moreover worshipped them but yet not for their own sakes but for theirs who were represented by them Neither does he say as you doe in this Chapter that though this were granted a Corruption yet were they not to separate for it What then does he certainly nothing else but abhorre the thing and deny the imputation Which way of answering does not I confesse plainly shew but yet it somewhat intimates that he had nothing else to answer and that if he could not have denyed this he could not have denyed the Donatists separation from them to have been just If this Answer to this little Argument seem not sufficient I adde moreover that if it be applyed to Luthers separation it hath the common fault of all your Allegations out of Fathers impertinence For it is one thing to separate from the Communion of the whole world another to separate from all the Communions in the world One thing to divide from them who are united among themselves another to diuide from them who are divided among themselves Now the Donatists separated from the whole World of Christians united in one Communion professing the same Faith serving God after the same manner which was a very great Argument that they could not have just cause to leave them according to that of Tertullian Variasse debuerat error Ecclesiarum quod autem apud multos unumest non est Erratum sed Traditum But Luther and his followers did not so The world I mean of Christians and Catholiques was divided and subdivided long before hee divided from it and by their divisions had much weakned their own Authority and taken away from you this plea of S. Austine which stands upon no other Foundation but the Vnity of the whole worlds Communion 102 Ad § 38. If Luther were in the right most certain those Protestants that differed from him were in the wrong But that either he or they were Schismatiques it followes not Or if it does then either the Iesuits are Schismatiques from the Dominicans or they from the Iesuits The Canonists from the Iesuites or the Iesuites from the Canonists The Scotists from the Thomists or they from the Scotists The Franciscans from the Dominicans or the Dominicans from the Franciscans For between all these the world knowes that in point of Doctrine there is plain and irreconcileable contradiction and therefore one Part must be in error at least not Fundamentall Thus your Argument returnes upon your selfe and if it be good proves the Roman Church in a manner to bee made up of Schismatiques But the Answer to it is that it begges this very false and vain supposition That whosoever erres in any point of doctrine is a Schismatique 103 Ad § 39. In the next place you number up your victories and tell us that out of these premises this conclusion followes That Luther and his followers were Schismatiques from the Visible Church the Pope the Diocesse wherein they were baptized from the Bishop vnder whom they lived from the country to which they belonged from their Religious order wherein they were professed from one another and lastly from a mans selfe Because the selfesame Protestant is convicted to day that his yesterdaies opinion was an error To which I Answer that Luther and his followers separated from many of these in some opininions and practices But that they did it without cause which only can make them Schismatiques that was the only thing you should have prov'd and to that you have not urged one reason of any moment All of them for weight and strength were cosen-germans to this pretty device wherewith you will prove them Schismatiques from themselves because the selfesame Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterdaies opinion was an error It seemes then that they that hold errors must hold them fast and take speciall care of being convicted in conscience that they are in error for fear of being Schismatiques Protestants must continue Protestants and Puritans Puritans and Papists Papists nay Iewes and Turkes and Pagans must remain Iewes and Turkes and Pagans and goe on constantly to the Divell or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques and that from themselves And this perhaps is the cause that makes Papists so obstinate not only in their common superstition but also in adhering to the proper phancies of their severall Sects so that it is a miracle to heare of any Iesuite that hath forsaken the opinion of the Iesuites or any Dominican that hath chang'd his for the Iesuits Without question this Gentleman my Adversary knowes none such or else methinkes he should not have objected it to D. Potter That he knew a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant which is likely to bee true But sure if this bee all his fault hee hath no reason to be ashamed of his acquaintance For possibly it
may be a fault to be in error because many times it proceeds from a fault But sure the forsaking of error cannot be a sinne unlesse to be in error be a vertue And therefore to doe as you doe to damne men for false opinions and to call them Schismatiques for leaving them to make pertinacy in error that is an unwillingnesse to be convicted or a resolution not to be convicted the forme of Heresies and to find fault with men for being convicted in conscience that they are in error is the most incoherent and contradictious injustice that ever was heard of But Sir if this be a strange matter to you that which I shall tell you will be much stranger I know a man that of a moderate Protestant turn'd a Papist and the day that he did so as all things that are done are perfected some day or other was convicted in conscience that his yesterdaies opinion was an error and yet thinks hee was no Schismatique for doing sos and desires to bee informed by you whether or no hee was mistaken The same man afterwards upon better consideration became a doubting Papist and of a doubting Papist a confirm'd Protestant And yet this man thinks himselfe no more to blame for all these changes then a Travailer who using all diligence to find the right way to some remote Citty where he never had been as the party I speak of had never been in Heaven did yet mistake it and after finde his error and amend it Nay he stands upon his justification so farre as to maintain that his alterations not only to you but also from you by Gods mercy were the most satisfactory actions to himselfe that ever he did and the greatest victories that ever he obtained over himselfe and his affections to those things which in this world are most precious as wherein for Gods sake and as he was verily perswaded out of love to the Truth he went upon a certain expectation of those inconveniences which to ingenuous natures are of all most terrible So that though there were much weaknesse in some of these alterations yet certainly there was no wickednesse Neither does he yeeld his weaknesse altogether without apology seeing his deductions were rationall and out of Principles commonly received by Protestants as well as Papists and which by his education had got possession of his understanding 104 Ad § 40. 41. D. Potter p. 81. of his booke to prove our separation from you not only lawfull but necessary hath these words Although we confesse the Church of Rome in some sense to be a true Church and her error to some men not damnable 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 He meanes not in the belief of those errors for that is presupposed to be done already for whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that she erres hath for matter of belief forsaken that is ceased to believe those errors This therefore he meant not nor could not meane but that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that the Church of Rome erres cannot with a good conscience but forsake her in the profession and practice of these errors and the reason hereof is manifest because otherwise he must professe what he believes not and practise what he approves not Which is no more then you selfe in thesi have diverse times affirmed For in one place you say It is unlawfull to speak any the least untruth Now he that professeth your Religion and believes it not what else doth he but live in a perpetuall lye Again in another you have called them that professe one thing and believe another a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And therefore in inveighing against Protestants for forsaking the Profession of these errors the beleefe whereof they had already forsaken what doe you but raile at them for not being a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants And lastly § 42. of this chap. within three leaves after this whereas D. Potter grants but only a necessity of peaceable externall obedience to the Declaration of the Church though perhaps erroneous provided it be in matter not of faith but of opinions or Rites condemning those men who by occasion of errors of this quality disturbe the Churches peace and cast off her communion Vpon this occasion you come upon him with this bitter sarcasme I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith and yet that it is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny Truth known to be contained in holy Scripture I Answer for him no It is not he but you that would have men doe so not he who saies plainly that whosoever is convinc'd in conscience that any Church erres is bound under pain of damnation to forsake her in her Profession and practice of these errors but you who finde fault with him and make long discourse against him for thus Affirming Not he who can easily winde himselfe out of your Imaginary Labyrinth by telling you that he no where denies it lawfull for any man to oppose any Church erring in matter of faith for that he speaks not of matters of faith at all but only of Rites and Opinions And in such matters he saies indeed at first It is not lawfull for any man to oppose his judgement to the publique But he presently explaines himselfe by saying not only that he may hold an opinion contrary to the Publique resolution but besides that he may offer it to be considered of so farre is he from requiring any sinfull dissimulation Provided he doe it with great Probability of Reason very modestly and respectfully and without separation from the Churches communion It is not therefore in this case opposing a mans private judgement to the publique simply which the Doctor findes fault with But the degree only and malice of this opposition opposing it factiously And not holding a mans own conceit different from the Church absolutely which here he censures But a factious advancing it and despising the Church so farre as to cast off her Communion because forsooth she erres in some opinion or useth some inconvenient though not impious rites and ceremonies Little reason therefore have you to accuse him there as if he required that men should dissemble against their conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture But certainly a great deale lesse to quarrell with him for saying which is all that here he saies that men under pain of demnation are not to dissemble but if they be convinc'd in conscience that your or any other Church for the
reason is alike for all erres in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errors 105 But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falsehoods and impertinencies The first falsehood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Vnlesse you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church erres in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet professe what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking it an act of humility to doe so Many more would have beene had they with liberty and indifference of judgement examined the grounds of the Religion which they professe But to think that all the Learned of your side are actually convinc'd of errors in your Church and yet will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an uncharitablenesse that I verily believe D. Potter abhorres it Your next falsehood is That the Doctor affirmes that you Catholiques want no meanes to Salvation and that he judges the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable Which calumny I have very often confuted and in this very place it is confuted by D. Potter and confessed by your selfe For in the beginning of this Answer you tell us that the Doctor avouches of all Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse that they cannot be saved Certainly then he must needs esteeme them to want something necessary to Salvation And then in the Doctors saying it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable which cleerely imports that according to his judgement they were damnable in themselves though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance and with repentance they might prove not damnable A third is that these Assertions the Roman Errors are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errors to hold and confesse them are absolutely inconsistent which is false for be the matter what it will yet for a man to tell a lye especially in matter of Religion cannot but be damnable How much more then to goe on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine Truths which he verily believes to be falsehoods and fables A fourth is that if we erred in thinking that your Church holds errors this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judging those errors not damnable For what repugnance is there between these two suppositions that you doe hold some errors and that they are not damnable And if there be no repugnance between them how can the beleefe of the latter remove or destroy or if it be erroneous rectify the belief of the former Nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them how can it be avoided but the belief of the latter will maintaine and preserve the belief of the former For who can conjoyne in one braine not crackt pardon me if I speake to you in your own words these Assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable and in the Roman Church there are no errors at all Or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection I esteeme the errors of the Roman Church not damnable therefore I doe amisse to think that she erres at all If therefore you would have us alter our judgements that your Church is erroneous your only way is to shew your doctrine consonant at least not evidently repugnant to Scripture and Reason For as for this device this short cut of perswading our selves that you hold no errours because we believe your errors are not damnable assure your selfe it will never hold 106 A fift falsehood is That we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must mean if you speak consequently to judge they have no errors because we judge they have none damnable Which the world knowes to be most untrue And for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beliefe and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion Which puts a main difference between them and you because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions but in yours we cannot A sixt is that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is any difference between a speculative perswasion of conscience of the unlawfulnesse of any thing and a practicall Dictamen that the same thing is unlawfull For these are but diverse words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholly speculative but tending to practice nor such a dictamē wholly practicall but grounded upon speculation A Seventh is That Protestants did only conceive in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors An eighth is that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errors not appertaining to the substance of Faith which is not universally true but with this exception unlesse that Church requires the belief and profession of them The ninth is that D. Potter teacheth that Luther was bound to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light Confuted manifestly by D. Potter in this very place for by the house of God you mean the Roman Church and of her the Doctor saies that a necessity did lye upon him even under pain of damnation to forsake the Church of Rome in her errors This sure is not to say that he was obliged to forsake her for an unnecessary light The tenth is covertly vented in your intimation that Luther and his followers were the proper cause of the Christian worlds combustion Whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect was your violent persecution of them for serving God according to their conscience which if it be done to you you condemne of horrible impiety and therefore may not hope to be excused if you doe it to others 107 The eleaventh is that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes containes many of these opinions And the reason of this assertion is very vaine for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them yet may they be of some things infallibly certaine As Euclide sure was not infallible yet was he certain enough that twice two were foure and that every whole was greater then a part of that whole And so though Calvin Melancthō were not infallible in all things yet they might and did know well enough that your Latine Service was condemned by S.
Paule and that the communion in both kindes was taught by our Saviour The twelfth and last is this that your Church was in peaceable possession you must mean of her doctrine and the Professors of it and enjoyed prescription for many ages For besides that doctrine is not a thing that may be possessed And the professors of it were the Church it selfe and in nature of possessors If we may speak improperly rather then the thing possessed with whom no man hath reason to be offended if they think fit to quit their own possession I say that the possession which the governors of your Church held for some ages of the party governed was not peaceable but got by fraude and held by violence 108 These are the Falshoods which in this answer offer themselves to any attentive Reader and that which remaines is meere impertinence As first that a pretence of conscience will not serve to iustifie separation from being Schismaticall Which is true but little to the purpose seeing it was not an erroneous perswasion much lesse an Hypocriticall pretence but a true and well grounded conviction of conscience which D. Potter alleaged to justifie Protestants from being Schismaticall And therefore though seditious men in Church and State may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion yet this I hope hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey his rightly informed conscience rather then the unjust commands of his tyrannous Superiours Otherwise with what colour can you defend either your own refusing the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy Or the ancient Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in authority and for their disobedience made no other but this Apologie Wee must obey God rather then men It is therefore most apparent that this answer must be meerly impertinent seeing it will serve against the Martyrs and Apostles and Prophets even against your selues as well as against Protestants To as little purpose is your rule out of Lyrinensis against them that followed Lâ—ther seeing they pretend and are ready to justify that they forsook not with the Doctors the faith but only the corruption of the Church As vain altogether is that which follows That in cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our Superiour or cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees From whence it will follow very evidently that seeing it is not a matter of faith but a disputed question among you whether the Oath of Allegiance be lawfull that either you acknowledge not the King your Superiour or doe against conscience in opposing his and the kingdomes decree requiring the taking of this Oath This good use I say may very fairely bee made of it and is by men of your own religion But then it is so far from being a confutation that it is rather a confirmation of D. Potters assertion For hee that useth these words doth he not plainly import and such was the case of Protestants that we are to leaue our Superiours to cast off obedience to them and publiquely to oppose their Decrees when we are certain as Protestants were that what they command God doth countermand Lastly S. Cyprians example is against Protestants impertinently and even ridiculously alleaged For what if S. Cyprian holding his opinion true but not necessary condemned no man much lesse any Church for holding the contrary Yet me thinks this should lay no obligation upon Luther to doe so likewise seeing he held his own opinions not onely true but also necessary the doctrine of the Roman Church not only false but damnable And therefore seeing the condition and state of the parties censured by S. Cyprian and Luther was so different no marvell though their censures also were different according to the supposed merit of the parties delinquent For as for your obtruding again upon us that we believe the points of difference not Fundamentall or nenessary you have been often told that it is a calumny We hold your errors as damnable in themselves as you doe ours only by accident through invincible ignorance we hope they are not unpardonable and you also professe to think the same of ours 109 Ad § 42. The former part of this discourse grounded on D. Potters words p. 105. I haue already in passing examined confuted I adde in this place 1. That though the Doctor say It is not fit for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique That is his own judgement and bare authority yet he denies not but occasions may happen wherein it may be very warrantable to oppose his reason or the authority of Scripture against it And is not then to be esteem'd to oppose his own judgement to the publique but the judgment of God to the judgement of men Which his following words seem to import He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason Secondly I am to tell you that you haue no ground from him to enterline his words with that interrogatory His own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture For these things are in his words opposed and not confounded and the latter not intended for a repetition as you mistake it but for an Antithesis of the former He may offer saith he his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence of Scripture But if hee will factiously advance his own conceits that is say I clean contrary to your glosse Such as have not evident nor very probable ground in Scripture for these conceits are properly his own he may iustly bee branded c. Now that this of the two is the better glosse it is proved by your own interrogation For that imputes absurdity to D. Potter for calling them a mans own conceits which were grounded upon evidence of Scripture And therefore you have shewed little candour or equity in fastning upon them this absurd construction They not only bearing but even requiring another more faire and more sensible Every man ought to be presum'd to speak sense rather then non-sense coherently rather then contradictiously if his words be fairely capable of a better construction For M. Hooker if writing against Puritans he had said something unawares that might give advantage to Papists it were not inexcusable seeing it is a matter of such extreme difficulty to hold such a temper in opposing one extreme opinion as not to seem to favour the other Yet if his words be rightly consider'd there is nothing in them that will doe you any service For though he saies that men are bound to doe whatsoever the sentence of finall decision shall determine as it is plain men are bound to yeeld such an obedience to all Courts of civill judicature yet he saies not they are bound to think that determination lawfull and that sentence just Nay it is plain hee saies that they must doe according to the Iudges sentence though in their private opinion
yee offend against God by troubling his Church without iust and necessary cause Be it that there are some reasons inducing you to think hardly of our Lawes Are those Reasons demonstrative are they necessary or but meer probabilities only An argument necessary and demonstratiue is such as being proposed to any man and understood the minde cannot choose but inwardly assent Any one such reason dischargeth I grant the conscience and setteth it at ful liberty For the publique approbation given by the body of this whole Church unto those things which are established doth make it but probable that they are good And therefore unto a necessary proofe that they are not good it must giue place This plain declaration of his judgement in this matter this expresse limitation of his former resolution hee makes in the very same Section which affords your former quotation and therefore what Apology can bee made for you and your store-house M. Brerely for dissembling of it I cannot possibly imagine 111 D. Potter p. 131. saies That the errors of the Donatists and Novatians were not in themselves Heresies nor could be made so by the Churches determination But that the Churches intention was only to silence disputes and to settle peace and unity in her government which because they factiously opposed they were justly esteemed Schismatiques From hence you conclude that the same condemnation must passe against the first Reformers seeing they also opposed the commands of the Church imposed on them for silencing all disputes and setling Peace and Vnity in government But this collection is deceitfull and the reason is Because though the first Reformers as well as the Donatists and Novatians opposed herein the Commands of the Visible Church that is of a great part of it yet the Reformers had reason nay necessity to doe so the Church being then corrupted with damnable errors which was not true of the Church when it was opposed by the Novatians and Donatists And therefore though they and the Reformers did the same action yet doing it upon different grounds it might in these merit applause and in them condemnation 112 Ad § 43. The next § hath in it some objections against Luthers person but none against his cause which alone I have undertaken to justify therefore I passe it over Yet this I promise that when you or any of your side shall publish a good defence of all that your Popes have said done especially of them whom Bellarmin beleeves in such a long train to have gone to the Divell then you shall receive an ample Apology for all the actions and words of Luther In the mean time I hope all reasonable and equitable judges will esteeme it not unpardonable in the great and Heroicall spirit of Luther if being opposed and perpetually baited with a world of Furies hee were transported sometimes and made somewhat furious As for you I desire you to be quiet and to demand no more whether God be wont to send such Furies to preach the Gospell Vnlesse you desire to heare of your killing of Kings Massacring of Peoples Blowing up of Parliaments and have a minde to be ask't whether it bee probable that that should bee Gods cause which needs to bee maintained by such Divellish meanes 112 Ad § 44. 45. In the two next Particles which are all of this Chapter that remain unspoken to you spend a great deale of reading wit reason against some men who pretending to honour believe the Doctrine practice of the visible Church you mean your own and condemning their Forefathers who forsook her say they would not have done so yet remain divided from her Communion Which men in my judgement cannot be defended For if they believe the Doctrine of your Church then must they believe this doctrine that they are to returne to your Communion And therefore if they doe not so it cannot be avoided but they must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so I leave them only I am to remember you that these men cannot pretend to be Protestants because they pretend to believe your doctrine which is opposite in Diameter unto the doctrine of Protestants and therefore in a worke which you professe to have written meerly against Protestants all this might have been spared CHAP. VI. That Luther and the rest of Protestants have added Heresie unto Schisme BECAVSE Vice is best knowne by the contrary Vertue we cannot well determine what Heresie is nor who be Heretiques but by the opposite vertue of Faith whose Nature being once understood as farre as belongs to our present purpose we shall passe on with ease to the definition of Heresie and so be able to discerne who be Heretiques And this I intend to doe not by entring into such particular Questions as are controverted between Catholiques and Protestants but only by applying some generall grounds either already proved or else yeelded to on all sides 2 Almighty God having ordained Man to a supernaturall End of Beatitude by supernaturall meanes it was requisite that his Vnderstanding should be enabled to apprehend that End and meanes by a supernaturall knowledge And because if such a knowledge were no more then probable it could not be able sufficiently to overbeare our Will and encounter with human probabilities being backed with the strength of flesh and blood It was further necessary that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certaine and infallible and that Faith should beleeue nothing more certainly then that it self is a most certain Beliefe and so be able to beat downe all gâ—y probabilities of humane Opinion And because the aforesaid Means and end of Beatificall Vision do farre exceed the reach of naturall wit the certainty of faith could not alwaies be joyned with such evidence of reason as is wont to be found in the Principles or Conclusions of humane naturall Sciences that so all flesh might not glory in the arme of flesh but that he who glories should glory in our Lord Moreover it was expedient that our belief or assent to divine truths should not only be unknowne or inevident by any humane discourse but that absolutely also it should be obscure in it self and ordinarily speaking be void even of supernaturall evidence that so we might have occasion to actuate and testifie the obedience which we owe to our God noâ— only by submitting our Will to this Will and Commands but by subjecting also our Vnderstanding to this Wisdome and Words captivating as the Apostle speaks the same Vnderstanding to the Obedience of Faith Which occasion had been wanting if Almighty God had made â—â—â—ere to us the truths which now are certainly but not evidently presented to our minds For where Truth doth manifestly open it self not obedience but necessity commands our assent For this reason Divines teach that the Objects of Faith being not evident to humane reason it is in mans power not only to abstaine from believing by suspending our Iudgments or exercising no act one
take from the number but one and say they were but foure against the Scripture affirming them to have been fiue he is instantly guilty of a damnable sinne Why Because by this subtraction of One he doth deprive Gods word and Testimony of all credit and infallibility For if either he could deceive or be deceived in any one thing it were but wisdome to suspect him in all And seeing eveâ—y Hereâ—y opposeth some Truth revealed by God it is no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly and damnable sinne For if voluntary Blasphemy and Periury which are opposite only to the inâ—used Morall Vertue of Religion can never be excused from mortall sinne much lesse can Heresy be excused which opposeth the Theologicall Vertue of Faith 11 If any object that Schisme may seem to be a greater sinne then Heresy because the Verâ—ue of Charity to which Schisme is opposite is greater then Faith according to the Apostle saying Now there remain Faith Hope Charity but the greatâ—r of these is Charity S. Thomas answeres in these words Charity hath two Obiects one principall to wit the 〈◊〉 Goodnesse and another secondary namely the good of our Neighbour But Schisme and other sinnes which are committed against our Neighbour are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good which is lesse then the obiect of Faith which is God as he is the Prime Verity on which Faith doth relie and therefore these sinnes are lesse then Infidelity He takes Infidelity after a generall manner as it comprehends Heresie and other vices against Faith 12. Having therefore sufficiently declared wherein Heresy consists Let us come to prove that which we proposed in this Chapter Where I desire it be still remembred That the visible Catholique Church cannot erre damnably as D. Potter confesseth And that when Luther appeared there was no other visible true Church of Christ disagreeing from the Roman as we have demonstrated in the next precedent Chapter 13 Now that Luther and his followers cannot be excused from formall Heresy I prove by these reasons To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God is formall Heresie as we have shewed out of the definition of Heresie But Luther Calvin and the rest did oppose divers truths propounded by the visible Church as revealed by God yea they did therefore oppose her because shee propounded as divine revealed truths things which they judged either to be fals or human inventions Therefore they committed formall Heresie 14 Moreover every Errour against any doctrine revealed by God is damnable Heresie whether the matter in it selfe be great or small as I proved before and therefore either the Protestants or the Roman Church must be guilty of formall Heresy because one of them must erre against the word testimony of God but you grant perforâ—e that the Roman Church doth not erre damnably I adde that she cannot erre damnably because she is the truly Catholique Church which you confesse cannot erre damnably Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formall Heresy 15 Besides we have shewed that the visible Church is Iudge of Controversies and therefore must be infallible in all her Proposals which being once supposed it manifestly followeth that to oppose what she delivereth as revealed by God is not so much to oppose her as God himself and therefore cannot be excused from grievous Heresy 16 Againe if Luther were an Heretique for those points wherein he disagreed from the Roman Church All they who agree with him in those very points must likewise be Heretiques Now that Luther was a formall Heretique I demonstrate in this manner To say that Gods visible true Church is not universall but confined to one only place or corner of the world is according to your owne expresse words properly Heresy against that Article of the Creed wherein we professe to beleeve the holy Catholique Church And you brand Donatus with heresy because he limited the universall Church to Africa But it is manifest and acknowledged by Luther himself aud other chief Protestants that Luthers Reformation when it first began and much more for divers Ages before was not Vniversall nor spread over the world but was confined to that compasse of ground which did contain Luthers body Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formall Heresy If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists There are innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not only in Africa as these men with most impudent vanity doe rave but that she is spread over the whole earth much more may it be said It appeareth by innumerable testimonies of holy Scripture that the Church of Christ cannot be confined to the Ciâ—ty of Wittemberg or to the place where Luthers feet stood but must be spread over the whole world It is therefore most impudent vanity and dotage to limit her to Luthers Reformation In another place also this holy Father writes no lesse effectually against Luther then against the Donatists For having out of those words In thy â—eed all Nations shall be blessed proved that Gods Church must be universall he saith Why doe you superadde by saying that Christ remaines heire in no part of the earth except where he may have Donatus for his Coheire Give me this Vniversall Church if it be among you shew your selves to all Nations which we already shew to be blessed in this Seed Give us this Church or else laying aside all fury receive her from us But it is evident that Luther could not when he said At the beginning I was alone give us an universall Church Therefore happy had he been if he had then and his followers would now receive her from us And therefore we must conclude with the same holy Father saying in another place of the universall Church She hath this most certain mark that she cannot be bidden She is then knowne to all Nations The Sect of Donatus is unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she The Sect of Luther at least when he began and much more before his beginning was unknowne to many Nations therefore that cannot be she 17 And that it may yet further appeare how perfectly Luther agreed with the Donatists It is to be noted that they never taught that the Catholique Church ought not to extend it self further then that part of Africa where their faction reigned but only that in fact it was so confined because all the rest of the Church was prophaned by communicating with Caeciliâ—â—us whom they falsly affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditours or gives up of the Bible to the Persecutors to be burned yea at that very time they had some of their Sect residing in Rome and sent thither one Victor a Bishop under colour to take care of the Brethren in that Citty but indeed as Baronius observeth that the world might account them Catholiques by
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
selfe same time they could be within and without the Catholique Church as proportionably I discoursed in the next precedent Chapter concerning the communicating of moderate Protestants with those who maintaine that Heresy of the Latency and Invisibility of Gods Church where I brought a place of S. Cyprian to this purpose which the Reader may be pleased to review in the fift Chapter and 17. Number 22 But besides this defect in the personall Succession of Protestant Bishops there is another of great moment which is that they want the right Forme of ordaining Bishops and Priests because the manner which they use is so much different from that of the Roman Church at least according to the common opinion of Divines that it cannot be sufficient for the Essence of Ordination as I could demonstrate if this were the proper place of such a Treatise and will not faile to doe if D. Potter give me occasion In the mean time the Reader may be pleased to read the Author cited here in the margent and then compare the forme of our Ordination with that of Protestants and to remember that if the forme which they use either in Consecrating Bishops or in ordaining Priests be at least doubtfull they can neither have undoubted Priests nor Bishops For Priests cannot be ordained but by true Bishops nor can any be a true Bishop unlesse he first be Priest I say their Ordination is at least doubtfull because that sufficeth for my present purpose For Bishops and Priests whose Ordination is notoriously known to be but doubtfull are not to be esteemed Bishops or Priests and no man without Sacriledge can receive Sacraments from them all which they administer unlawfully And if we except Baptisme with manifest danger of invalidity and with obligation to be at least conditionally repeated so Protestants must remain doubtfull of Remission of sinnes of their Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and may not pretend to be a true Church which cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests not without due administration of Sacraments which according to Protestants is an essentiall note of the true Church And it is a world to observe the proceeding of English Protestants in this point of their Ordinations For first Ann. 3. Edw. 6. cap. 2. when he was a Child about twelve yeares of age It was enacted that such forme of making and consecrating of Bishops and Priests as by sixe Prelates and sixe other to be appointed by the King should be devised marke this word devised and set forth under the great Seale should be used and none other But after this Act was repealed 1. Mar. Sess. 2. in so much as that when afterward An. 6. 7 Reg. Eliz. Bishop Bonner being endicted upon a certificate made by D. Horne a Protestant Bishop of Winchester for his refusall of the Oath of Supremacy and he excepting against the endictment because D Horne was no Bishop all the Iudges resolved that his exception was good if indeed D. Horne was not Bishop and they were all at a stand till An. 8. Eliz cap. 1. the act of Edw. 6. was renewed and confirmed with a particular proviso that no man should be impeached or molested by meanes of any certificate by any Bishop or Archbishop made before this last Act. Whereby it is cleere that they made some doubt of their own ordination and that there is nothing but uncertainty in the whole businesse of their Ordination which forsooth must depend upon sixe Prelats the great Seale Acts of Parliaments being contrary one to another and the like 23 But though they want Personall Succession yet at least they have Succession of doctrine as they say and pretend to prove because they believe as the Apostles believed This is to begg the Question and to take what they may be sure will never be granted For if they want Personall Succession and sleight Ecclesiasticall Tradition how will they perswade any man that they agree with the doctrine of the Apostles We have heard Tertullian saying I will prescribe against all Heretiques that there is no meanes to prove what the Apostles preached but by the same Churches which they founded And S. Irenaeus tels us that We may behold the Tradition of the Apostles in every Church if men be desirous to hear the truth and we can number them who were made Bishops by the Apostles in Churches and their Successors even to us And the same Father in another place saith We ought to obey those Priests who are in the Church who have Succession from the Apostles and who together with Succession in their Bishopricks have received the certain gift of truth S. Austine saith I am kept in the Church by the succession of Priests from the very Sea of Peter the Apostle to whom our Saviour after his Resurrection committed his sheep to be fed even to the present Bishop Origen to this purpose giveth us a good and wholsome Rule happy if himselfe had followed the same in these excellent words Since there be many who think they believe the things which are of Câ—rist and some are of different opinion from those who went before them let the preaching of the Church be kept which is delivered by the Apostles by order of Succession and remaines in the Church to this very day that only is to be believed for truth which in nothing disagrees from the Tradition of the Church In vain then doe these men brag of the doctrine of the Apostles unles first they can demonstrate that they enjoyed a continued succession of Bishops from the Apostles and can shew us a Church which according to S. Austine is deduced by undoubted SVCCESSION from the Sea of the Apostles even to the present Bishops 23 But yet neverthelesse suppose it were granted that they agreed with the doctrine of the Apostles this were not sufficient to prove a Succession in Doctrine For Succession besides agreement or similitude doth also require a never-interrupted conveying of such doctrine from the time of the Apostles till the daies of those persons who challenge such a Succession And so S. Augustine saith We are to believe that Gospell which from the time of the Apostles the Church hath brought downe to our daies by a never-interrupted course of times and by undoubted succession of connection Now that the Reformation begunne by Luther was interrupted for divers ages before him is manifest out of History and by his endeavouring a Reformation which must presuppose abuses He cannot therefore pretend a continued Succession of that Doctrine which he fought to revive and reduce to the knowledge and practice of men And they ought not to prove that they have Succession of doctrine because they agree with the doctrine of the Apostles but contrarily we must inferre that they agree not with the Apostles because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrine from the times of the Apostles till Luther And here it is not amisse to note
what a man is you should define him A Reasonable creature that hath skill in Astronomy For as all Astronomers are men but all men are not Astronomers and therefore Astronomy ought not to be put into the definition of men where nothing should have place but what agrees to all men So though all that are truly wise that is wise for eternity will believe aright yet many may believe aright which are not wise I could wish with all my heart as Moses did that all the Lords people could Prophesy That all that believe the true Religion were able according to S. Peters injunction to give a reason of the hope that is in them a reason why they hope for eternall happinesse by this way rather then any other neither doe I think it any great difficulty that men of ordinary capacities if they would give their minde to it might quickly be enabled to doe so But should I affirme that all true Believers can doe so I suppose it would be as much against experience and modesty as it is against Truth and Charity to say as you doe that they which cannot doe so either are not at all or to no purpose true believers And thus wee see that the foundations you build upon are ruinous and deceitfull and so unfit to support your Fabrick that they destroy one another I come now to shew that your Arguments to prove Protestants Heretiques are all of the same quality with your former grounds which I will doe by opposing cleere and satisfying Answers in order to them 11 Ad § 13. To the first then delivered by you § 13. That Protestants must be Heretiques because they opposed divers Truths propounded for divine by the Visible Church I Answer It is not Heresy to oppose any Truth propounded by the Church but only such a Truth as is an essentiall part of the Gospell of Christ. 2. The Doctrines which Protestants opposed were not Truths but plain and impious falshoods Neither thirdly were they propounded as Truths by the Visible Church but only by a Part of it and that a corrupted Part. 12 Ad § 14. The next Argument in the next Particle tell us That every error against any doctrine revealed by God is damnable Heresy Now either Protestants or the Roman Church must erre against the word of God But the Roman Church we grant perforce doth not erre damnably neither can she because she is the Catholique Church which we you say confesse cannot erre damnably Therefore Protestants must erre against Gods word and consequently are guilty of formall Heresy Whereunto I answer plainly that there be in this argument almost as many falshoods as assertions For neither is every error against any Doctrine revealed by God a damnable Heresy unlesse it be revealed publiquely plainly with a command that all should beleeve it 2. D. Potter no where grants that the Errors of the Roman Church are not in themselves damnable though he hopes by accident they may not actually damne some men amongst you and this you your selfe confesse in divers places of your book where you tell us that he allowes no hope of Salvation to those amongst you whom ignorance cannot excuse 3. You beg the Question twice in taking for granted First that the Roman Church is the truly Catholique Church which without much favour can hardly passe for a part of it And againe that the Catholique Church cannot fall into any error of it selfe damnable for it may doe so and still be the Catholique Church if it retain those Truths which may be an antidote against the malignity of this error to those that held it out of a simple un-affected ignorance Lastly though the thing be true yet I might well require some proofe of it from you that either Protestants or the Roman Church must erre against Gods word For if their contradiction be your only reason then also you or the Dominicans must be Heretiques because you contradict one another as much as Protestants and Papists 13 Ad § 15. The third Argument pretends that you have shewed already that the Visible Church is Iudge of Controversies and therefore infalliable from whence you suppose that it followes that to oppose her is to oppose God To which I answer that you have said onely and not shewed that the Visible Church is Iudge of Controversies And indeed how can she be Iudge of them if she cannot decide them And how can she decide them if it be a question whether she be Iudge of them That which is question'd it selfe cannot with any sense be pretended to be fit to decide other questions and much lesse this question whether it have Authority to judge and decide all questions 2. If she were Iudge it would not follow that she were infallible for we have many Iudges in our Courts of Iudicature yet none infallible Nay you cannot with any modesty deny that every man in the world ought to judge for himselfe what Religion is truest and yet you will not say that every man is infallible 3. If the Church were supposed Infallible yet it would not follow at all much lesse manifestly that to oppose her declaration is to oppose God unlesse you suppose also that as she is infallible so by her opposers she is known or believed to be so Lastly If all this were true as it is all most false yet were it to little purpose seeing you have omitted to prove that the Visible Church is the Roman 14 Ad § 16. In stead of a fourth Argument this is presented to us That if Luther were an Heretique then they that agreed with him must be so And that Luther was a formall Heretique you endeavour to prove by this most formall Syllogisme To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall is properly an Heresy But Luthers Reformation was not Vniversall Therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresy Whereunto I Answer first to the first part that it is no way impossible that Luther had he been the inventor and first broacher of a false Doctrine as he was not might have been a formall Heretique and yet that those who follow him may be only so materially and improperly and indeed no Heretiques Your own men out of S. Augustine distinguish between Haeretici Haereticorum sequaces And you your selfe though you pronounce the leaders among the Arrians formall Heretiques yet confesse that Salvian was at least doubtfull whether these Arrians who in simplicity followed their Teachers might not be excused by ignorance And about this suspension of his you also seeme suspended for you neither approve nor condemne it Secondly to the second part I say that had you not presumed upon our ignorance in Logick as well as Metaphysicks and Schoole Divinity you would never have obtruded upon us this rope of sand for a formall Syllogisme It is even Cosen German to this To denie the Resurrection is properly an Heresie But Luthers Reformation was not Vniversall Therefore it cannot be excused from
formall Heresie Or to this To say the Visible Church is not Vniversall is properly an Heresie But the preaching of the Gospell at the beginning was not Vniversall therefore it cannot be excused from formall Heresie For as he whose Reformation is but particular may yet not denie the Resurrection so may he also not denie the Churches Vniversality And as the Apostles who preached the Gospell in the beginning did beleeve the Church Vniversall though their preaching at the beginning was not so So Luther also might and did beleeve the Church Universall though his Reformation were but particular I say he did beleeve it Vniversall even in your own sense that is Universall de iure though not defacto And as for Vniversality in fact he beleeved the Church much more Vniversall then his reformation For he did conceive as appeares by your own Allegations out of him that not only the Part reformed was the true Church but also that they were Part of it who needed reformation Neither did he ever pretend to make a new Church but to reform the old one Thirdly and lastly to the first proposition of this unsyllogisticall syllogisme I answer That to say the true Church is not alwaies defacto universall is so far from being an Heresy that it is a certaine truth knowne to all those that know the world and what Religions possesse farre the greater part of it Donatus therefore was not to blame for saying that the Church might possibly be confin'd to Africk but for saying without ground that then it was so And S. Austine as he was in the right in thinking that the Church was then extended farther then Africk so was he in the wrong if he thought that of necessity it alwaies must be so but most palpably mistakē in conceiving that it was then spread over the whole earth known to all nations which if passion did not trouble you make you forget how lately almost halfe the world was discovered and in what estate it was then found you would very easily see and confesse 15 Ad § 17. In the next Section you pretend that you have no desire to prosecute the similitude of Protestants with the Donatists and yet you doe it with as much spight and malice as could well bee devised but in vaine For Lucilla might doe ill in promoting the Sect of the Donatists and yet the Mother and the Daughter whom you glance at might doe well in ministring influence as you phrase it to Protestants in England Vnlesse you will conclude because one woman did one thing ill therefore no woman can doe any thing well or because it was ill done to promote one Sect therefore it must bee ill done to maintaine any 16 The Donatists might doe ill in calling the Chaire of Rome the Chaire of Pestilence and the Roman Church an Harlot and yet the state of the Church being altered Protestants might doe well to doe so and therefore though S. Austine might perhaps have reason to persecute the Donatists for detracting from the Church and calling her harlot when she was not so yet you may have none to threaten D. Potter that you would persecute him as the Application of this place intimates you would if it were in your power plainly shewing that you are a curst cow though your hornes be short seeing the Roman Church is not now what it was in S. Austines time And hereof the conclusion of your own book affords us a very pregnant testimony where you tell us out of Saint Austine that one grand-impediment which among many kept the seduced followers of the faction of Donatus from the Churches Communion was a vile calumny raised against the Catholiques that they did set some strange thing upon their Altar To how many saith S. Austine did the reports of ill tongues shut up the way to enter who said that we put I know not what upon the Altar Our of detestation of the calumny and just indignation against it he would not so much as name the impiety wherewith they were charged and therefore by a Rhetoricall figure calls it I know not what But compare with him Optatus writing of the same matter and you shall plainly perceive that this I know not what pretended to be set upon the Altar was indeed a picture which the Donatists knowing how detestable a thing it was to all Christians at that time to set up any Pictures in a Church to worship them as your new fashion is bruited abroad to be done in the Churches of the Catholique Church But what answer doe S. Austine and Optatus make to this accusation Doe they confesse and maintaine it Doe they say as you would now It is true we doe set Pictures upon our Altar and that not only for ornament or memory but for worship also but we doe well to doe so and this ought not to trouble you or affright you from our Communion What other answer your Church could now make to such an objection is very hard to imagine And therefore were your Doctrine the same with the Doctrine of the Fathers in this point they must have answered so likewise But they to the cōtrary not only deny the crime but abhorre and detest it To litle purpose therefore doe you hunt after these poore shadowes of resemblances between us and the Donatists unlesse you could shew an exact resemblance between the present Church of Rome and the Ancient which seeing by this and many other particulars it is demonstrated to bee impossible that Church which was then a Virgin may be now a Harlot and that which was detraction in the Donatists may be in Protestants a just accusation 17 As ill successe have you in comparing D. Potter with Tyconius whom as S. Austin findes fault with for continuing in the Donatists separation having forsaken the ground of it the Doctrine of the Churches perishing so you condemne the Doctor for continuing in their Communion who hold as you say the very same Heresy But if this were indeed the Doctrine of the Donatists how is it that you say presently after that the Protestants who hold the Church of Christ perished were worse then Donatists who said that the Church remained at least in Africa These things me thinkes hang not well together But to let this passe The truth is this difference for which you would faine raise such a horrible dissention between D. Potter and his Brethren if it be well considered is only in words and the manner of expression They affirming only that the Church perished from its integrity and fell into many corruptions which he derlies not And the Doctor denying only that it fell from its essence and became no Church at all which they affirme not 18 These therefore are but velitations and you would seeme to make but small account of them But the main point you say is that since Luthers Reformed Church was not in being for divers Centuries before Luther and yet was in the Apostles time
not afraid of Giants His words are these The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures is taken from Eusebius a an Arrian author and from Ruffinus b enemie to the Roman Church his translator who writ c that S. IRENEVS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. IOHN had introduced d for a time in their Provinces because of the neighbourhood of the Iewes and to bury the Synagogue with honour and not according to the universall tradition of the Apostles Irenaeus saith Calvin reprehended Pope Victor bitterly because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church There is this in the text that Calvin produceth He reprehended him that he had not done well to cut off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches But against whom maketh this but e against those that obiect it for who sees not that S. IRENEVS doth not there reprehend the Pope for the f want of power but for the ill use of his power and doth not reproach to the Pope that he could not excommunicate the Asians but admonisheth him that for g so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church Iraeneus saith Eusebius did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient tradition And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith He questioned Victor that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches of God And in truth how could S. IRENEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power he that cries To the Roman Church because of a more powerfull principality that is to say as aboue appeareth h because of a principality more powerfull then the temporall or as wee have expounded other where because of a more powerful Original i it is necessary that every Church should agree And k therefore also S. IRENEVS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him and of the other Bishops of the Gaules assembled in a councell holden expressely for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in an other Councell holden expressely for the same effect who had not excommunicated them nor the example of Palmas and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus who had not excommunicated them but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors The Prelates saith he who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest Anisius Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Sixtus have not observed this custome c. and neverthelesse none of those that observed it have been excommunicated And yet O admirable providence of God the l successe of the after ages shewed that even in the use of his power the Popes proceeding was iust For after the death of Victor the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople and of Ephesus excommunicated again those that held the same custome with the provinces that the Pope had excommunicated and placed them in the Catalogue of heretiques under the titles of heretiques Quarto decumans But to this instance Calvins Sect doe annex two new observations the first that the Pope having threatned the Bishops of Asia to excommunicate them Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Popes threats as it appeares by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius and of S. IEROM and which S. IEROM seemeth to approve when he saith he reports it to shew the spirit and authority of the man And the second that when the Pope pronounced anciently his excommunications he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated and did not thereby separate them from the universall communion of the Church To the first then we say that so farre is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and deminishing the Popes authority that contrary wise it greatly magnifies and exalts it For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custome of his nation which he beleeved to be grounded upon the word of God who had assigned the fourteenth of the Moneth of March for the observation of the Pasche and upon the example of S. IOHNS tradition maintaines it obstinately Neverthelesse this that he answeres speaking in his own name and in the name of the Councell of the Bishops of Asia to whom he presided I feare not those that threaten us for my elders have said it is better to obey God then man Doth it not shew that had it not been that he beleeved the Popes threat was against the expresse word of God there had been cause to feare it and he had been obliged to obey him for m who knowes not that this answer it is better to obey God then men is not to be made but to those whom we were obliged to obey if their commandements were not contrary to the commandements of God And that he adds that he had called the Bishops of Asia to a Nationall Councell being n summoned to it by the Pope doth it not insinuate that the other Councels whereof Eusebius speaks that were holden about this matter through all the provinces of the Earth and particularly that of Palestina which if you beleeve the act that Beda said came to his hands Theophilus Archbishop of Cesarea had called by the auctority of Victor were holden at the instance of the Pope and consequently that the Pope was the first mover of the universall Church And that the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the censure of Victor and excommunicated those that observed the custome of Polycrates doth it not prove that it was not the Pope but o Polycrates that was deceived in beleeving that the Popes cōmandement was against Gods commandement And that S. IEROM himselfe celebrates the Paschall Homelies of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria which followed the order of Nicea concerning the Pasche Doth it not iustifie that when S. IEROM saith that he reports the Epistle of Polycrates to shew the spirit and authority of the man he intends by authority not authority of right but of fact that is to say the credit that Polycrates had amongst the Asians and other Quarto decimans These are the Cardinall words The most materiall and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition I have noted with letters of reference whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order a If Eusebius were an Arrian author It is nothing to the purpose what he writes there is no Arrianisme
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
direct contradictions viz. that conformity to the Roman Church was necessary in all points and not necessary in this or else so horribly impious as believing this doctrine of the Roman Church true and her power to receive Appeales derived from divine Authority notwithstanding to oppose and condemne it and to Anathematize all those Africans of what condition soever that should appeale unto it I say of what condition soever For it is evident that they concluded in their determination Bishops as well as the inferior Clergy and Laity And Cardinall Perrons pretence of the contrary is a shamelesse falshood repugnant to the plaine words of the Remonstrance of the African Bishops to Celestine Bishop of Rome 34 Your allegation of Tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of syncerity For you produce with great ostentation what he saies of the Church of Rome but you and your fellowes alwaies conceale and dissemble that immediatly before these words he attributes as much for point of direction to any other Apostolique Church and that as he sends them to Rome who lived neare Italy so those neare Achaia hee sends to Corinth those about Macedonia to Philippi and Thessalonica those of Asia to Ephesus His words are Goe to now thou that wilt better imploy thy curiosity in the businesse of thy salvation run over the Apostolicall Churches wherein the Chaires of the Apostles are yet sate upon in their places wherein their Authentique Epistles are recited sounding out the voyce and representing the face of of every one Is Achaia neere thee there thou hast Corinth If thou art not farre from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast Thessalonica If thou canst goe into Asia there thou hast Ephesus If thou be adjacent to Italy thou hast Rome whose Authority is neere at hand to us in Africk A happy Church into which the Apostles powred forth all their Doctrine together with their blood c. Now I pray Sir tell me if you can for blushing why this place might not have been urg'd by a Corinthian or Philippian or Thessalonian or an Ephesian to shew that in the judgment of Tertullian separation from any of their Churches is a certain mark of Heresie as iustly and rationally as you alleadge it to vindicate this priviledge to the Roman Church only Certainly if you will stand to Tertullians judgment you must either grant the authority of the Roman Church though at that time a good Topicall Argument and perhaps a better then any the Heretiques had especially in conjunction with other Apostolique Churches yet I say you must grant it perforce but a fallible Guide as well as that of Ephesus and Thessalonica and Philippi and Corinth or you must maintain the Authority of every one of these infallible as well as the Roman For though he make a Panegyrick of the Roman Church in particular and of the rest only in generall yet as I have said for point of direction he makes them all equall and therefore makes them choose you whether either all fallible or all infallible Now you will and must acknowledge that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Churches of Ephesus or Corinth or if he did that as experience shewes he erred in doing so and what can hinder but then we may say also that he never intended to attribute infallibility to the Roman Church or if he did that he erred in doing so 35 From the saying of S. Basil certainly nothing can be gathered but only that the Bishop of Rome may discerne betweene that which is counterfeit and that which is lawfull and pure and without any diminution may preach the faith of our Ancestours Which certainly he might doe if ambition and covetousnesse did not hinder him or else I should never condemne him for doing otherwise But is there no difference betweene may and must Beleeve hee may doe so and he cannot but doe so Or doth it follow because he may doe so therefore he alwayes shall or will doe so In my opinion rather the contrary should follow For he that saith you may doe thus implies according to the ordinary sense of words that if he will he may doe otherwise You certainly may if you please leave abusing the world with such Sophistry as this but whether you will or no of that I have no assurance 36 Your next Witnesse I would willingly have examined but it seemes you are unwilling he should be found otherwise you would have givē us your direction where we might have him Of that Maximianus who succeeded Nestorius I can find no such thing in the Councels Neither can I beleeve that any Patriarch of Constantinople twelve hundred yeares agoe was so base a parasite of the Sea of Rome 37 Your last Witnesse Iohn of Constantinople I confesse speaks home and advanceth the Roman sea even to heaven But I feare it is that his owne may goe up with it which hee there professes to bee all one sea with the sea of Rome and therefore his Testimony as speaking in his own case is not much to be regarded But besides I have litle reason to be confident that this Epistle is not a forgery for certainly Binius hath obtruded upon us many a hundred such This though written by a Graecian is not extant in Greek but in Latine only Lastly it comes out of a suspicious place an old book of the Vatican Library which Library the world knowes to have been the Mint of very many impostures 38 Ad § 20. 21. 22. 23. The summe of your discourse in the 4. next Sections if it be pertinent to the Question in agitation must be this Want of succession of Bishops and Pastours holding alwayes the same doctrine and of the formes of ordaining Bishops and Priests which are in use in the Roman Church is a certain mark of Heresie But Protestants want all these things Therefore they are Heretiques To which I Answer That nothing but want of truth and holding errour can make or prove any man or Church hereticall For if he be a true Aristotelian or Platonist or Pyrrhoniā or Epicurean who holds the doctrine of Aristotle or Plato or Pirrho or Epicurus although he cannot assigne any that held it before him for many Ages together why should I not be made a true and orthodox Christian by beleeving all the doctrine of Christ though I cannot derive my descent from a perpetuall Successiō that beleev'd it before me By this reason you should say as well that no man can be a good Bishop or Pastour or King or Magistrate or Father that succeeds a bad one For if I may conforme my will and actions to the Commandements of God why may I not embrace his doctrine with my understanding although my predecessour doe not so You have aboue in this Chapter defin'd Faith a free Infallible obscure supernaturall assent to divine Truths because they are revealed by God sufficiently propounded This definition is very phantasticall but for the present I
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 Pappus who has collected out of Bellar their contradictions and set them down in his own words to the number of 237. to Flacius de Sect is controversiis Religionis Papisticae you making the very same use of M. Breerely against Protestants yet jeere and scorne D. Potter as if he offer'd you for a proofe the bare authority of Pappus and Flacius and tell him which is all the answer you vouchsafe him It is pretty that he brings Pappus and Flacius flat Heretiques to prove your many contradictions As if he had proved this with the bare authority the bare judgement of these men which sure he does not but with the formall words of Bellarmine faithfully collected by Pappus And why then might not we say to you Is it not pretty that you bring Breerly as flat an Heretique as Pappus or Flacius to prove the contradictions of Protestants Yet had he been so vain as to presse you with the meere authority of Protestant Divines in any point me thinkes for your own sake you should have pardon'd him who here and in many other places urge us with the judgement of your Divines as with weighty arguments Yet if the authority of your Divines were even Canonicall certainly nothing could be concluded from it in this matter there being not one of them who delivers for true doctrine this position of yours thus nakedly set down That any error against any one revealed truth destroies all divine faith For they all require not your selfe excepted that this truth must not only be revealed but revealed publiquely and all things considered sufficiently propounded to the erring Party to be one of those which God under pain of damnation commands all men to believe And therefore the contradiction of Protestants though this vaine doctrine of your Divines were supposed true is but a weak argument That any of them have no divine Faith seeing you neither have not ever can prove without begging the Question of your Churches infallibility that the truthes about which they differ are of this quality and condition But though out of curtesy wee may suppose this doctrine true yet we have no reason to grant it nor to think it any thing but a vain and groundlesse fancy and that this very weak and inartificiall argument from the authority of your Divines is the strongest pillar which it hath to support it Two reasons you alleage for it out of Thomas Aquinas the first whereof vainly supposeth against reason and experience that by the commission of any deadly sinne the habit of Charity is quite extirpated And for the second though you cry it up for an Achilles and think like the Gorgons head it will turne us all into stone and in confidence of it insult upon D. Potter as if he durst not come near it yet in very truth having considered it well I finde it a serious grave prolixe and profound nothing I could answer it in a word by telling you that it beggs without all proofe or colour of proofe the main question between us that the infallibility of your Church is either the formall motive or rule or a necessary condition of faith which you know we flatly deny and therefore all that is built upon it has nothing but wind for a foundation But to this answer I will adde a large confutation of this vain fancy out of one of the most rationall and profound Doctors of your own Church I mean Estius who upon the third of the Sent. the 23. dist the 13. § writes thus It is disputed saith he whether in him who believes some of the Articles of our faith and disbelieves others or perhaps someone there be faith properly so called in respect of that which he does believe In which question we must before all carefully distinguish between those who retaining a generall readinesse to believe whatsoever the Church believes yet erre by ignorance in some doctrine of faith because it is not as yet sufficiently declared to them that the Church does so believe and those who after sufficient manifestation of the Churches doctrine doe yet choose to dissent from it either by doubting of it or affirming the contrary For of the former the answer is easy but of these that is of Heretiques retaining some part of wholsome doctrine the question is more difficult and on both sides by the Doctors probably disputed For that there is in them true faith of the Articles wherein they doe not erre first experience seemes to convince For many at this day denying for example sake Purgatory or Invocation of Saints neverthelesse firmely hold as by divine revelation that God is Three and One that the Sonne of God was incarnate and suffered and other like things â—As anciently the Novatians excepting their peculiar error of denying reconciliation to those that fell in persecution held other things in common with Catholiques So that they assisted them very much against the Arrians as Socrates relates in his Eccl. Hist. Moreover the same thing is proved by the example of the Apostles who in the time of Christs passion being scandaliz'd lost their faith in him as also Christ after his resurrection upbraids them with their incredulity and calls Thomas incredulous for denying the Resurrection Ioh. 20. Whereupon S. Austine also in his preface upon the 96. Ps. saith That after the Resurrection of Christ the faith of those that fell was restored again And yet we must not say that the Apostles then lost the faith of the Trinity of the Creation of the world of Eternall life and such like other Articles Besides the Iewes before Christs comming held the faith of one God the Creator of Heaven and Earth who although they lost the true faith of the Messias by not receiving Christ yet we cannot say that they lost the faith of one God but still retained this Article as firmely as they did before Adde hereunto that neither Iewes nor Heretiques seeme to lye in saying they believe either the books of the Prophets or the four Gospels It being apparent enough that they acknowledge in them Divine Authority though they hold not the true sense of them to which purpose is that in the Acts. c. 20. Believest thou the Prophets I know that thou believest Lastly it is manifest that many gifts of God are found even in bad men and such as are out of the Church therefore nothing hinders but that Iewes and Heretiques though they erre in many things yet in other things may be so divinely illuminated as to believe aright So S. Austin seemes to teach in his book De Vnico Baptismo contra Peâ—ilianum c. 3. in these words When a Iew comes to us to be made a Christian we destroy not in him Gods good things but his own ill That he believes one God is to be worshipped that he hopes for eternall life that he doubts not of the Resurrection we approve and commend him we acknowledge that as he did believe these things so he
thereof Now your Church notwithstanding all this enervates and in a manner dissolves and abrogates many of these precepts teaching men that they are not lawes for all Christians but Counsells of perfection and matters of Supererrogation that a man shall doe well if he doe observe them but he shall not sinne if he observe them not That they are for them who ayme at high places in heaven who aspire with the two sonnes of Zebede to the right hand or to the left hand of Christ But if a man will be content barely to goe to heaven and to be a doore keeper in the house of God especially if he will be content to tast of Purgatory in the way he may obtaine it at any easier purchase Therefore the Religion of your Church is not so holy nor so good as the doctrine of Christ delivered in Scripture and therefore not so likely to come from the Fountaine of holinesse goodnesse 72 Lastly if I follow your Church for my Guide I shall doe all one as if I should follow a Company of blind men in a judgement of colours or in the choice of a way For every unconsidering man is blind in that which he does not consider Now what is your Church but a Company of unconsidering men who comfort themselves because they are a great company together but all of them either out of idlenesse refuse the trouble of a severe tryall of their Religion as if heaven were not worth it or out of superstition fear the event of such a tryall that they may be scrupled and staggered and disquieted by it and therefore for the most part doe it not at all Or if they doe it they doe it negligently and hypocritically and perfunctorily rather for the satisfaction of others then themselves but certainly without indifference without liberty of judgement without a resolution to doubt of it if upon examination the grounds of it prove uncertain or to leave it if they prove apparently false My own experience assures me that in this imputation I doe you no injury but it is very apparent to all men from your ranking doubting of any part of your Doctrine among mortall sinnes For from hence it followes that seeing every man must resolve that he will never commit mortall sinne that he must never examine the grounds of it at all for fear he should be mov'd to doubt or if he doe he must resolve that no motives be they never so strong shall move him to doubt but that with his will and resolution he will uphold himselfe in a firme belief of your Religon though his reason and his understanding faile him And seeing this is the condition of all those whom you esteem good Catholiques who can deny but you are a Company of men unwilling and afraid to understand least you should doe good That have eyes to see and will not see that have have not the love of truth which is only to be known by an indifferent tryall therefore deserve to be given over to strong delusions men that love darknesse more then light in a word that you are the blind leading the blind and what prudence there can be in following such Guides our Saviour hath taught us in saying If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch 73 There remaines unspoken to in this Section some places out of S. Austin and some sayings of Luther wherein he confesses that in the Papacy are many good things But the former I have already considered and return'd the argument grounded on them As for Luthers speeches I told you not long since that we follow no privat men and regard not much what he saies either against the Church of Rome or for it but what he proves He was a man of a vehement Spirit and very often what he took in hand he did not doe it but over doe it He that will justify all his speeches especially such as he wrote in heat of opposition I believe will have work enough Yet in these sentences though he overreach in the particulars yet what he saies in generall we confesse true and confesse with him that in the Papacy are many good things which have come from them to us but withall we say there are many bad neither doe wee think our selves bound in prudence either to reject the good with the bad or to retain the bad with the good but rather conceive it a high point of wisdome to separate between the pretious and the vile to sever the good from the bad and to put the good in vessels to be kept and to cast the bad away to try all things and to hold that which is good 74 Ad § 32. Your next and last argument against the faith of Protestants is because wanting Certainty and Prudence it must also want the fourth condition Supernaturality For that being a humane perswasion it is not in the essence of it supernaturall and being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from Divine motion and so is not supernaturall in respect of the cause from which it proceedeth Ans. This litle discourse stands wholly upon what went before and therefore must fall together with it I have proved the Faith of Protestants as certain and as prudent as the faith of Papists and therefore if these be certain grounds of supernaturality our faith may have it as well as yours I would here furthermore be inform'd how you can assure us that your faith is not your perswasion or opinion for you make them all one that your Churches doctrine is true Or if you grant it your perswasion why is it not the perswasion of men and in respect of the subject of it an humane perswasion I desire also to know what sense there is in pretending that your perswasion is not in regard of the object only and cause of it but in nature or essence of it supernaturall Lastly whereas you say that being imprudent it cannot come from divine motion certainly by this reason all they that believe your own Religion and cannot give a wise and sufficient reason for it as millions amongst you cannot must be condemn'd to have no supernaturall faith or if not then without question nothing can hinder but that the imprudent faith of Protestants may proceed from divine motion as well as the imprudent faith of Papists 75 And thus having weighed your whole discourse and found it altogether lighter then vanity why should I not invert your conclusion and say Seeing you have not proved that whosoever erres against any one point of Faith looseth all divine Faith nor that any error whatsoever concerning that which by the Parties litigant may be esteem'd a matter of faith is a grievous sinne it followes not at all that when two men hold different doctrines concerning Religion that but one can be saved Not that I deny but that the sentence of S. Chrysost. with which you conclude this Chapt. may in a good sense be true for oftimes by
If an Infant dye without Baptisme he cannot be saved not by reason of any actuall sinne committed by him in omitting Baptisme but for Originall sinne not forgiven by the meanes which God hath ordained to that purpose Which doctrine all or must Protestants will for ought I know grant to be trve in the Children of Infidels yea not only Lutherans but also some other Protestants as M. Bilson late of Winchester others hold it to be true even in the Children of the faithfull And if Protestants in generall disagree fom Catholiques in this point it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement is in a point very fundamentall And the like I say of the Sacrament of Pennance which they deny to be necessary to salvation either in act or in desire which error is likewise fundamentall because it concernes as I said a thing necessary to salvation And for the same reason if their Priesthood and Ordination be doubtfull as certainly it is they are in danger to want a meanes without which they cannot be saved Neither ought this rigour to seeme strange or unjust For Almighty God having of his own Goodnesse without our merit first ordained Man to a supernaturall end of eternall felicity and then after our fall in Adam vouchsafed to reduce us to the attaining of that End if his blessed Will be pleased to limit the attaining of that End to some meanes which in his infinite Wisdome he thinks most fit who can say why dost thou so Or who can hope for that End without such meanes Blessed be his divine Majesty for vouchsafing to ordaine us base creatures to so sublime an End by any meanes at all 4 Out of the foresaid difference followeth another that generally speaking in things necessary only because they are commanded it is sufficient for avoiding sinne that we proceed prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of vertue learning and wisdome Neither are we alwaies obliged to follow the most strict and severe or secure part as long as the doctrine which wee embrace proceeds upon such reasons as may warrant it to be truly probable and prudent though the contrary part want not also probable grounds For in humane affaires and discourse evidence and certainty cannot be alwaies expected But when wee treat not precisely of avoiding sinne but moreover of procuring some thing without which I cannot bee saved I am obliged by the Law and Order of Charity to procure as great certainty as morrally I am able and am not to follow euery probable opinion or dictamen but tutiorem partem the safer part because if my probability prove false I shall not probably but certainly come short of Salvation Nay in such case I shall incurre a new sinne against the Vertue of Charity towards my selfe which obligeth every one not to expose his soule to the hazard of eternall perdition when it is in his power with the assistance of Gods grace to make the matter sure From this very ground it is that although some Divines be of opinion that it is not a sinne to use some Maâ—ter or Form of Sacraments only probable if we respect precisely the reverence or respect which is due to Sacraments as they belong to the Morall iâ—fused Vertue of Religion yet when they are such Sacraments as the invalidity thereof may endanger the salvation of soules all doe with one consent agree that it is a grievous offence to use a doubtfull or onely probable Matter or Forme when it is in our power to procure certainty If therefore it may appeare that though it were not certaine that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation as we have proved to be very certaine yet at least that is probable and with all that there is a way more safe it will follow out of the grounds already said that they are obliged by the law of Charity to imbâ—ace that safe way 5 Now that Protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand is deduced from what we have said and proved about the universall infallibility of the Church and of her being Iudge of Controversies to whom all Christians ought to submit their Iudgement as even some Protestants gâ—ant and whom to oppose in any one of her definitions is a grievous sinne As also from what we have said of the Vnity Vniversality and Visibility of the Church and of Succession of Persons and Doctrine Of the Conditions of Divine Faith Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality which are wanting in the faith of Protestants Of the frivolous distinction of points fundamentall not fundamentall the confutation whereof proveth that Heretiques disagreeing among themselves in any least point cannot have the same faith nor be of the same Church Of Schisme of Heresy of the Persons who first revolted from Rome and of their Motives of the Nature of Faith which is destroyed by any least errour it is Certaine that some of theÌ„ must be in error want the substance of true faith since all pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them have any certainty at all but that they want true faith which is a meanes most absolutely necessary to Salvation Moreover as I said heretofore since it is granted that every Error in fundamentall points is damnable and that they cannot tell in particular what points be fundamentall it followes that none of them knowes whether he or his Brethren doe not erre damnably it being certain that amongst so many disagreeing persons some must erre Vpon the same ground of not being able to assigne what points be fundamentall I say they cannot be sure whether the difference among them be fundamentall or no and consequently whether they agree in the substance of faith and hope of Salvation I omit to adde that you want the Sacrament of Pennance instituted for remission of sinnes or at least you must confesse that you hold it not necessary and yet your own Brethren for example the Century Writers doe acknowledg that in times of Cyprian and Tertullian Private Confession even of Thoughts was used and that it was then commanded and thought necessary The like I say concerning your Ordination which at least is very doubtfull and consequently all that depends thereon 6 On the other side that the Roman Church is the the safer way to Heaven not to repeat what hath been already said upon divers occasions I will again put you in mind that unlesse the Roman Church was the true Church there was no visible true Church upon earth A thing so manifest that Protestants themselves confesse that more then one thousand years the Roman Church possessed the whole world as we have shewed heretofore out of their own words from whence it follows that unlesse Ours be the true Church you cannot pretend to any perpetuall visible Church of your Own but Ours doth not depend on yours before which it was And here I wish you to consider with
feate and trembling how all Roman Catholiques not one excepted that is those very men whom you must hold not to erre damnably in their belief unlesse you will destroy your own Church and salvation doe with unanimous consent believe and professe that Protestancy unrepented destroyes Salvation and then tell me as you will answer at the last day Whether it be not more safe to live and die in that Church which even your selves are forced to acknowledge not to be cut off from hope of Salvation which are your own words then â—â—live in a Church which the said confessedly true Church doth firmly believe and constantly professe not to be capable of Salvation And therefore I conclude that by the most strict obligation of Charity towards your own soule you are bound to place it in safety by returning to that Church from which your Progenitors Schismatically departed least too late you find that saying of the holy Ghost verified in your selves He that loves the danger shall perish therein 7 Against this last argument of the greater security of the Roman Church drawn from your own confession you bring an Objection which in the end will be found to make for us against your selfe It is taken from the words of the Donâ—tists speaking to Catholiques in this manner Your selves confesse our Baptisme Sacraments and Faith here you put an Explication or your own and say for the most part as if any small error in faith did not destroy all Faith to be good and available We deny yours to be so and say there is no Church no salvation amongst you Therefore it is safest for all to joyn with us 8 By your leave our Argument is not as you say for simple people alone but for all them who have care to save their soules Neither is it grounded upon your Charitable Iudgement as you speak but upon an inevitable necessity for you either to grant salvation to our Church or to entaile certaine damnation upon your owne because yours can have no being till Luther unlesse ours be supposed to have been the true Church of Christ. And since you term this Argument a charme take heed you be none of those who according to the Prophet David doe not heare the voice of him who charmeth wisely But to come to the purpose Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved And therefore you having cited out of S. Augustine the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptisme when you come to the contrary words of the Donatists you adde No Church No Salvation making the Argument to have quinque terminos without which Addition you did see it made nothing against us For as I said the Catholiques never yielded that among the Donatists there was a true Church or hope of salvation And your selfe a few leaves after acknowledge that the Donatists maintained an error which was in the Matter and Nature of it properly haereticall against that Article of the Creed wherein we professe to believe the holy Catholique Church and consequently you cannot allow salvation to them as you doe and must doe to us And therefore the Donatists could not make the like argument against Catholiques as Catholiques make against you who grant us Salvation which we deny to you But at least you will say this Argument for the Certainty of their Baptisme was like to Ours touching the Security and Certainty of our salvation and therefore that Catholiques should have esteemed the Baptisme of the Donatists more certain then their own and so have allowed Rebaptization of such as were baptized by Heretiques or sinners as the Donatists esteemed all Catholiques to be I answer no. Because it being a matter of faith that Baptisme administred by Heretiques observing due Matter form c. is valide to rebaptize any so baptized had been both a sacriledg in reiterating a SacrameÌ„t not reiterable and a profession also of a damnable Heresy and therefore had not been more safe but certainly damnable But you confesse that in the doctrine or practice of the Roman Church there is no belief or profession of any damnable error which if there were even your Church should certainly be no Church To believe therefore and professe as we doe cannot exclude Salvation as Rebaptization must have done But if the Donatists could have affirmed with truth that in the opinion both of Catholiques and themselves their Baptisme was good yea and good in such sort as that unlesse theirs was good that of the Catholiques could not be such but theirs might be good though that of the Catholiques were not and further that it was no damnable error to believe that Baptisme administred by the Catholiques was not good nor that it was any Sacriledg to reiterate the same Baptisme of Catholiques If I say they could have truly affirmed these things they had said somewhat which at least had seemed to the purpose But these things they could not say with any colour of truth and therefore their argument was fond and impious But we with truth say to Protestants You cannot but confesse that our doctrine containes no damnable error and that our Church is so certainly a true Church that unlesse ours be true you cannot pretend any Yea you grant that you should be guilty of Schisme if you did cut off our Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation But we neither doe nor can grant that yours is a true Church or that within it there is hope of salvation Therefore it is safest for you to joyn with us And now against whom hath your Objection greatest force 9 But I wonder not a little and so I think will ever body else what the reason may be that you doe not so much as goe about to answer the argument of the Donatists which you say is all one with Ours but referre us to S. Augustine there to read it as if every one carried with him a Library or were able to examine the places in S. Augustine and yet you might be sure your Reader would be greedy to see some solid answer to an argument so often urged by us and which indeed unless you can confute it ought alone to move every one who hath care of his soule to take the safest way by incorporating himself in our Church But we may easily imagine the true reason of your silence For the answer which S. Augustine gives to the Donatists is directly against your self and the same which I have given Namely that Catholiques approve the Baptisme of Donatists but abhorre their heresy of Rebaptization And that as gold is good which is the similitude used by S. Augustine yet not to be sought in company of theeves so though Baptisme be good yet it must not be sought for in the Conventicle of Donatists But you free us from damnable heresy and yield us salvation which I hope is to be imbraced in whatsoever Company it is
found or rather that Company is to be imbraced before all other in which all sides agree that salvation may be found We therefore must inferre that it is safest for you to seeke salvation among us You had good reason to conceal S. Augustins answer to the Donatists 10 You frame another argument in our behalf and make us speake thus If Protestants believe the Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heaven why doe they not follow it which wise argument of your own you answer at large and confirm your answer by this instance The Iesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Yet so that the Iesuits hold the Dominicans way safe that is his error not damnable and the Dominicans hold the same of the Iesuits Yet neither of them with good Consequence can presse the other to believe his opinion because by his own Confession it is no damnable error 11 But what Catholique maketh such a wise demaund as you put into our mouths If our Religion be a safe way to heaven that is not damnable why doe you not follow it As if every thing that is good must be of necessity imbraced by every body But what think you of the Argument framed thus Our Religion is safe even by your Confession therefore you ought to grant that all may imbrace it And yet further thus Among different Religions and contrary waies to heaven one only can be safe But ours by your own Confession is safe whereas we hold that in yours there is no hope of salvation Therefore you may and ought to imbrace ours This is our Argument And if the Dominicans and Iesuits did say one to another as we say to you then one of them might with good consequence press the other to believe his opinion You have still the hard for tune to be beaten with your own weapon 12 It remaineth then that both in regard of Faith and Charity Protestants are obliged to unite themselves with the Church of Rome And I may adde also in regard of the Theologicall Vâ—â—tue of Hope without which none can hope to be saved and which you want either by exâ—â—sse of Confidence or defect by Despair not unlike to your Faith which I shewed to be either â—â—â—cient in Certainty or excessive in EvideÌ„ce as likewise according to the rigid Calvinists it is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten For the trve Theologicall Hope of Christians is a Hope which keeps a mean between Presumption and Desperation which moves us to work our salvation with feare and trembling which conducts us to make sure our salvation by good works as holy Scripture adviseth But contrarily Protestants doe either exclude Hope by Despaire with the Doctrine that our Saviour died not for all and that such want grace sufficient to salvation or else by vaine Presumption grounded upon a fantasticall persuasion that they are Predestinate which Faith must exclude all feare and trembling Neither can they make their Calling certain by good works who doe certainly beleeve that before any good works they are justified and justified even by Faith alone and that by Faith whereby they certainly believe that they are justified Which points some Protestants doe expresly affirme to be the soule of the Church the principall Origen of salvation Of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest as already I have noted Chap. 3. n. 19. And if some Protestants doe now relent from the rigour of the aforesaid doctrine we must affirme that at least some of them want the Theologicall Vertue of Hope yea that none of them can have trve Hope while they hope to be saved in the Communion of those who defend such doctrines as doe directly overthrow all true Christian Hope And for as much as concernes Faith we must also infer that they want Vnity therein and consequently have none at all by their disagreement about the soule of the Church the principall Origen of salvation of all other points of Doctrine the chiefest and weightiest And if you want trve Faith you must by consequence want Hope or if you hold that this point is not to be so indivisible on either side but that it hath latitude sufficient to imbrace all parties without prejudice to their salvation notwithstanding that your Brethren hold it to be the soule of the Church c. I must repeat what I have said heretofore that even by this Example it is cleer you cannot agree what points be fundamentall And so to whatsoever answer you fly I presse you in the same manner and say that haue no Certainty whether you agree in fundamentall points or Vnity and substance of Faith which cannot stand with difference in fundamentalls And so upon the whole matter I leave it to be considered whether Want of Charity can be iustly charged on us because we affirme that they cannot without repentance be saved who want of all other the most necessary meanes to salvation which are the three Theologicall Vertues FAITH HOPE and CHARITY 13 And now I end this first part having as I conceive complyed with my first designe in that measure which Time Commodity scarcity of Books and my own small Abilities could afford which was to shew that Amongst men of different Religions one side only can be saved For since there must be some infallible Meanes to decide all Controversies concerning Religion and to propound truth revealed by Almighty God and this Meanes can be no other but the Visible Church of Christ which at the time of Luthers appearance was only the Church of Rome and such as agreed with her We must conclude that whosoever opposeth himself to her definitions or forsaketh her Communion doth resist God himself whose Spouse she is and whose divine truth she propounds and therefore becoms guilty of Schisme and Heresie which since Luther his Associates and Protestants have done and still continue to doe it is not Want of Charity but abundance of evident cause that forceth us to declare this necessary Truth PROTESTANCIE VNREPENTED DESTROIES SALVATION THE ANSVVER TO THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not bound by the Charity which they owe to themselves to re-unite themselves to the Roman Church THE first foure Paragraphs of this Chapter are wholly spent in an un-necessary introduction unto a truth which I presume never was nor will be by any man in his right wits either denied or question'd and that is That every man in wisdome and charity to himselfe is to take the safest way to his eternall Salvation 2 The fift and sixt are nothing in a manner but references to discourses already answered by me and confuted in their proper places 3 The seaventh eight ninth tenth and eleventh have no other foundation but this false pretence That we confesse the Roman Church free from damnable error 4 In the
can hinder but this must also be so Since Protestants and Papists pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all And this too Since all Christians pretend the like certainty it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all And thirdly this Since men of all religions pretend a like certainty it is cleer that none of them haue any at all And lastly this Since oft-times they which are abused with a specious Paralogisme pretend the like certainty with them which demonstrate it is cleer that none of them haue any certainty at all Certainly Sir Zeal and the Divell did strangely blind you if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequences of your positions if you did see it yet would set them down you deserve worse censure Yet such as these are all the arguments wherewith you conceive your selfe to have prov'd undoubtedly that Protestants haue reason at least to doubt in what case they stand Neither am I afraid to venture my life upon it that your selfe shall not choose so much as one out of all the pack which I will not shew before indifferent Iudges either to be impertinent to the question inconsequent in the deduction or grounded upon some false or at least uncertain foundation 14 Your third and fourth argument may bee thus put into one Protestants cannot tell what points in particular be fundamentall therefore they cannot tell whether they or their brethren doe not erre fundamentally and whether their difference be not fundamentall Both which deductions I haue formerly shewed to be most inconsequent for knowing the Scripture to contain all fundamentalls though many more points besides which makes it difficult to say precisely what is fundamentall and what not knowing this I say and believing it what can hinder but that I may be well assured that I belieue all fundamentalls and that all who believe the Scripture syncerely as well as I doe not differ from me in any thing fundamentall 15 In the close of this Section you say that you omit to adde that we want the Sacrament of Repentance instituted for the remission of sins or at least we must confesse that we hold it not necessary and yet our own brethren the Century writers acknowledge that in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian private Confession even of thoughts was used and that it was then commanded and thought necessary and then our Ordination you say is very doubtfull and all that depends upon it Ans. I also omit to answer 1. That your brother Rhenanus acknowledges the contrary assures us that the Confession then required and in use was publique and before the Church and that your auricular Confession was not then in the world for which his mouth is stopped by your Index Expurgatorius 2. That your brother Arcudius acknowledges that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to Infants and esteemed necessary or at least profitable for them and the giving it shewes no lesse now I would know whether you will acknowledge your Church bound to giue it and to esteem so of it 3. That it might be then commanded and being commanded be thought necessary and yet be but a Church Constitution Neither will I deny if the present Church could and would so order it that the abuses of it might bee prevented and conceiving it profitable should enjoyn the use of it but that being commanded it would be necessary 4. Concerning our Ordinations besides that I haue prou'd it impossible that they should be so doubtfull as yours according to your own principles I answer that experience shewes them certainly sufficient to bring men to faith and repentance and consequently to salvation and that if there were any secret defect of any thing necessary which we cannot help God will certainly supply it 16 Ad § 6. In the sixt you say you will not repeat but only put us again in minde that unlesse the Roman Church were the true Church there was no visible Church upon earth a thing so manifest that Protestants themselves confesse c. Ans. Neither will I repeat but only put you in minde that you haue not prov'd that there is any necessity that there should be any visible true Church nor if there were that there was no other besides the Roman For as for the confession of Protestants which here you insist upon it is evident out of their own words cited by your selfe that by the whole world they meant onely the greatest part of it which is an usuall figure of speech and never intended to deny that besides the Church then reigning triumphing in this world there was another militant Church other Christians visible enough though persecuted and oppressed Nor thirdly doe you here make good so much as with one fallacy that if the Roman Church were then the visible Church it must needs be now the only or the safer way to heaven and yet the connexion of this consequence was very necessary to be shewne For for ought I know it was not impossible that it might then be the only Visible Church yet now a very dangerous way to heaven or perhaps none at all 17 Afterwards you vainly pretend that all Roman Catholiques not one excepted professe that Protestancy unrepented destroies salvation Frō which generality wee may except two at least to my knowledge and those are your selfe and Franciscus de Sancta Clara who assures us that Ignorance and Repentance may excuse a Protestant from damnation though dying in his errour And this is all the charity which by your own confession also the most favourable Protestants allow to Papists and therefore with strange repugnance to your selfe you subjoyne that these are the men whom we must hold not to erre damnably unlesse we will destroy our owne Church and salvation Whereas as I have said before though you were Turks and Pagans we might bee good Christians Neither is it necessary for the perpetuating of a Church before Luther that your errours even then should not be damnable but only not actually damning to some ignorant soules among you In vaine therefore doe you make such tragedies as here you doe In vaine you conjure us with feare and trembling to consider these things We have considered them againe and againe and look't upon them on both sides finde neither terrour nor truth in them Let children and fooles bee terrified with bug-beares men of understanding will not regard them 18 Ad § 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Your whole discourse in your five next Paragraphs I have in the beginning of this Chapter fully confuted by saying that it stands altogether upon the false foundation of this affected mistake that we doe and must confesse the Roman Church free from damnable error which will presently be apparent to any one who considers that the seaventh and tenth are nothing but D. Potters words and that in the other three you obtrude upon us this Crambe
no fewer then seven times May you be pleased to look back to your own Book you shall find it so as I have said that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation which when you have observ'd and withall considered that your selfe plainly intimate that D. Potters discourses which here you censure would be good and concluding if we did not as we doe not free you from damnable errour I hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these Sections the honour of any farther answer is a great supererrogation in point of civility Neverthelesse partly that I may the more ingratiate my selfe with you but especially that I may stop their mouthes who will be apt to say that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to is an unanswerable argument I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctually and particularly 19 First then to your little parenthesis which you interline among D. Potters words § 7. That any small error in faith destroies all faith To omit what hath been said before I answer here what is proper for this place that S. Austine whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident you are with us saith he to the Donatists Ep. 48. in Baptisme in the Creed in the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith prove to me likewise that thou hast charity Paralell to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiasticall conversation common lessons the same faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgements of these Fathers even the Donatists though Heretiques and Schismatiques gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramentall Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true extream Vnction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire for so he saies in expresse tearmes in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20 Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the Possibility of your Salvation is for simple people alone but for all men I answer certainly whosoever is moved with it must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd by the confession of Protestants which is indeed all that they confesse therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church and he that does think so what reason is there why he should not think this as good Ignorant Protestans may be saved by the confession of Papists by name Mr K. therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church Whereas you say that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unlesse yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer this cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the termes but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many ages For neither doe you shew neither does it appear that the generation of Churches is univocall that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages any more then the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetuall pedigree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence overwatching and overruling it may preserve the meanes of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men Thus the Iewes preserve meanes to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church doe as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talke vainly as if you were the only men in the world before Luther yet the world knowes that this but talke and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not beene Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant salvation to it unlesse by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusuall Sinechdoche 21 Whereas you say that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himselfe granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists 22 Whereas you say that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austine the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptisme when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatist addes no Church no Salvation Ans. You wrong D. Potter who pretends not to cite S. Austines formall words but only his sense which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleaged by D. Potter His words are Petilianus dixit venite ad Ecclesiam Populi aufugite Traditores si perire non vultis Petilian saith come to the Church yee people and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damn'd for that yee may know that they being guilty esteeme very well of our Faith Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely And therefore no Church no Salvation was not D. Potters addition
And whereas you say the Catholiques never yeelded that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation I say it appears by what I have alleaged out of S. Austine that they yeelded both these were among the Donatists as much as we yeeld them to be among the Papists As for D. Potters acknowledgement that they maintained an error in the matter nature of it Hereticall This proves them but Materiall Heretiques whom you doe not exclude from possibility of Salvation So that all things considered this argument must be much more forcible from the Donatists against the Catholiques then from Papists against Protestants in regard Protestants grant Papists no more hope of salvation then Papists grant Protestants whereas the Donatists excluded absolutely all but their own Part from hope of Salvation so farre as to account them no Christians that were not of it the Catholiques mean while accounting them Brethren and freeing those among them from the imputation of Heresy who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cùm invenerint 23 Whereas you say That the Argument for the certainty of their Baptisme because it was confessed good by Catholiques whereas the Baptisme of Catholiques was not confessed by them to be good is not so good as yours touching the certainty of your Salvation grounded on the confession of Protestants because wee confesse there is no damnable error in the Doctrine or practice of the Roman Church I Ans. no we confesse no such matter and though you say so a hundred times no repetition will make it true We professe plainly that many damnable errors plainly repugnant to the precepts of Christ both Ceremoniall and Morall more plainly then this of Rebaptization and therefore more damnable are believed and professed by you And therefore seeing this is the only disparity you can devise and this is vanished it remaines that as good an answer as the Catholiques made touching the certainty of their Baptisme as good may we make and with much more evidence of Reason touching the security and certainty of our Salvation 24 By the way I desire to be inform'd seeing you affirme that Rebaptizing those whom Hereticks had baptized was a sacriledge and a profession of a damnable Heresie when it began to be so If from the beginning it were so then was Cyprian a sacrilegious professor of a damnable heresy and yet a Saint and a martyr If it were not so then did your Church excommunicate Firmilian and others and separate from them without sufficient ground of Excommunication or Separation which is Schismaticall You see what difficulties you runne into on both sides choose whether you will but certainly both can hardly be avoided 25 Whereas again in this § you obtrude upon us That we cannot but confesse that your doctrine containes no damnable error and that yours is so certainly a true Church that unlesse yours be true we cannot pretend any I answer there is in this neither truth nor modesty to outface us that we cannot but confesse what indeed we connot but deny For my part if I were upon the rack I perswade my selfe I should not confesse the one nor the other 26 Whereas again presently you adde that D. Potter grants we should be guilty of Schisme if we did cut off your Church from the body of Christ and the hope of Salvation I have shewed above that he grants no such matter He saies indeed that our not doing so frees us from the imputation of Schisme from hence you sophistically inferre that he must grant If we did so wee were Schismatiques and then make your Reader believe that this is D. Potters confession it being indeed your own false collection For as every one that is not a Papist is not a Iesuit and yet not every one that is a Papist is a Iesuit As whosoever comes not into England comes not to London and yet many may come to England and not come to London As whosoever is not a man is not a King and yet many are men that are not Kings So likewise it may be certain that whosoever does not so is free from Schisme and yet they that doe so if there be sufficient cause may be not guilty of it 27 Whereas you pretend to wonder that the Doctor did not answer the argument of the Donatists which he saies is all one with yours but referres you to S. Austine there to read it as if every one carried with him a Library or were able to examin the places in S. Austin I answer the parity of the Arguments was that which the Doctor was to declare whereto it was impertinent what the answer was But sufficient it was to shew that the Donatists argument which you would never grant good was yet as good 〈◊〉 yours and therefore yours could not be good Now to this purpose as the concealing the answer was no way advantagious so to produce it was not necessary and therefore he did you more service then he was bound to in referring you to S. Austin for an answer to it Whereas you say he had reason to conceale it because it makes directly against himselfe I say it is so farre from doing so that it will serve in proportion to the argument as fitly as if it had been made for it for as S. Austine saies that Catholiques approve the Doctrine of Donatists but abhorre their Heresy of Re-baptization so we say that we approve those fundamentall and simply necessary Truths which you retaine by which some good soules among you may be saved but abhorre your many Superstitions and Heresies And as he saies that as gold is good yet ought not to be sought for among a company of Theeves and Baptisme good but not to be sought for in the Conventicles of Donatists so say we that the Truths you retaine are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant soules among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicle of Papists who hold with them a mixture of many vanities and many impieties For as for our freeing you from damnable Heresy and yeelding you Salvatiō which stone here again you stumble at neither he nor any other Protestant is guilty of it and therefore you must confesse that this very answer will serve Protestants against this charme of Papists as well as S. Austine against the Donatists and that indeed it was not D. Potter but You that without a Sarcasme had reason to conceale this Answer 28 The last piece of D. Potters book which you are pleased to take notice of in this first Part of yours is an argument he makes in your behalfe p. 79. of his book where he makes you speak thus If Protestants believe the Religion of Papists to be a safe way to heaven why doe they not follow it This argument you like not because many things may be good and yet not necessary to be embraced by every body therefore scoffe at
it and call it an argument of his own a wise argument a wise demand and then aske of him what he thinkes of it being fram'd thus Our Religion is safe even by your confession and therefore you ought to grant that all may embrace it And yet farther thus Among different Religions one only can be safe But yours by our own confession is safe where as you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation therefore we ought to embrace yours Ans. I have advised with him am to tell you froÌ„ him that he thinks reasonable well of the arguments but very ill of him that makes them as affirming so often without shame and conscience what he cannot but know to be plainly false and his reason is because he is so farre from confessing or giving you any ground to pretend he does confesse that your Religion is safe for all that are of it from whence only it will follow that all may safely embrace it that in this very place from which you take these words he professeth plainly that it is extreamly dangerous if not certainly damnable to all such as professe it when either they doe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinat might believe the contrary and that for us whâ— are convinc'd in conscience that she the Româ—â— Church erres in many things it lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors And though here you take upon you a shew of great rigour and will seem to hold that in our way there is no hope of Salvation yet formerly you have been more liberall of your charity towards us and will needs vye and contend with D. Potter which of the two shall be more Charitable assuring us that you allow Protestants as much Charity as D. Potter spares you for whom he makes Ignorance the best hope of Salvation And now I appeale to any indifferent reader whether our disavowing to confesse you free from damnable error were not as I pretend a full confutation of all that you say in these five foregoing Paragraphs And as for you I wonder what answer what evasion what shift you can devise to cleere your selfe from dishonesty for imputing to him almost a hundred times this acknowledgment which he never makes but very often and that so plainly that you take notice of it professeth the contrary 29 The best defence that possibly can be made for you I conceive is this that you were led into this error by mistaking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctors for a positive assertion He saies indeed of your errors Though of themselves they be not damnable to them which believe as they professe yet for us to professe what we believe not were without question damnable But to say Though your errors be not damnable we may not professe them is not to say your errors are not damnable but only though they be not As if you shoul say though the Church erre in points not fundamentall yet you may not separate from it Or though we doe erre in believing Christ really present yet our error frees us from Idolatry Or as if a Protestant should say Though you doe not commit Idolatry in adoring the Host yet being uncertain of the Priests Intention to consecrate at least you expose yourselfe to the danger of it I presume you would not think it fairely done if any man should interpret either this last speech as an acknowledgemeÌ„t that you doe not commit Idolâ—try or the former as confessions that you doe erre in points not fundamentall that you doe erre in believing the reall presence And therefore you ought not so to have mistaken D. Potters words as if he had confessed the errors of your Church not damnable when he saies no more but this Though they be so or suppose or put the case they be so yet being errors we that know them may not professe them to be divine truths Yet this mistake might have been pardonable had not D. Potter in many places of his book by declaring his judgement touching the quality and malignity of your errors taken away from you all occasion of error But now that he saies plainly That your Church hath many waies played the Harlot and in that regard deserv'd a Bill of divorce from Christ and the detestation of Christians p. 11. That for that Masse of Errors and abuses in judgement and practice which is proper to her and wherein she differs from us we judge a reconciliation impossible and to us who are convicted in conscience of her corruptions damnable pag. 20. That Popery is the contagion or plague of the Church p. 60. That we cannot we dare not communicate with her in her publique Liturgy which is manifestly polluted with drosse of Superstition p. 68. That they who in former ages dyed in the Church of Rome died in many sinfull errors p. 78. That they that have understanding and means to discover their errors and neglect to use them he dares not flatter them with so easy a censure as to give them hope of salvation p. 79. That the way of the Roman Religion is not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversely obstinate might believe the contrary p. 79. That your Church is but in some sense a true Church and your errors only to some men not damnable that we who are convinc'd in conscience that she erres in many things are under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors Seeing I say he saies all this so plainly and so frequently certainly your charging him falsely with this acknowledgement and building a great part not only of your discourse in this Chapter but of your whole book upon it possibly it may be palliated with some excuse but it can no way be defended with any just apology Especially seeing you your selfe more then once or twice take notice of these his severer censures of your Church and the errors of it and make your advantage of them In the first number of your first Chapter you set down three of the former places and from thence inferre That as you affirme Protestancy unrepented destroies Salvation so D. Potter pronounces the like heavy doome against Roman Catholiques and again § 4. of the same Chap. We allow Protestants as much charity as D. Potter spareâ— us for whom he makes ignorance the best hope of salvation And c. 5. § 41. you have these words It is very strange that you iudge us extreamly uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your selfe avouch the same of all Learned Catholiques whom Ignorance cannot excuse Thus out of the same mouth you blow hot and cold and one while when it is for your purpose you professe D. Potter censures your errors as heavily as you doe ours which is very true for he gives hope
of Salvation to none among you but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error and no sinne cause of their ignorance and presently after when another project comes in your head you make his words softer then oile towards you you pretend he does and must confesse That your Doctrine containes no damnable error that your Church is certainly a true Church that your way to heaven is a safe way and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute without any restriction or limitation whereas in the Doctor they are all so qualified that no knowing Papist can promise himselfe any security or comfort from them We confesse saith he the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnable we believe her Religion safe that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Observe I pray these restraining termes which formerly you have dissembled A true Church in some sense not damnable to some men a safe way that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some And then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute which are thus plainly limited how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious Sophister You quarrell with the Doctor in the end of your Preface for using in his Book such ambiguous tearmes as these in some sort in some sense in some degree and desire him if he make any reply either to forbear them or to tell you roundly in what sort in what sense in what degree he understands these and the like mincing phrases But the truth is he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermin'd as you pretend but told you plainly in what sense your Church may passe for a true Church viz. In regard we may hope that she retaines those truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation which may suffice to bring those good soules to heaven who wanted meanes of discovering their errors this is the charitable construction in which you may passe for a Church And to what men your Religion may be safe and your errors not damnable viz. to such whom Ignorance may excuse and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you for quoting his words without those qualifications then you to finde fault with him for using of them 30 That your Discourse in the 12. § presseth you as forcibly as Protestants I have shewed above I adde here 1. Whereas you say that faith according to rigid Calvinists is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never begotten That these are words without sense Never any Calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten but it seemes you wanted matter to make up your Antithesis and therefore were resolved to speak empty words rather then loose your figure Crimina rasis Librat in antithetis doct as posuisse Figuras Laudatur 2. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the Truth of this proposition Christ died for all nor to subscribe to that sense of it which your Dominicans put upon it neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society deny that they as well as the Calvinists take away the distinction of sufficient and effectuall grace and indeed hold none to be sufficient but only that which is effectuall 3. Whereas you say They cannot make their calling certain by good workes who doe certainly believe that before any good works they are justified and justified by faith alone and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified I ans There is no Protestant but believes that Faith Repentance and universall Obedience are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternall happinesse This being granted the rest is but a speculative Controversy a Question about words which would quickly vanish but that men affect not to understand one another As if a company of Physitians were in consultation and should all agree that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Patients health this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health though concerning the proper and specificall effects of these three medicines there should be amongst them as many differences as men So likewise being generally at accord that these three things Faith Hope Charity are necessary to salvation so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it and he which hath them all cannot faile of it it is not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternall Salvation And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all good workes they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved what sense is there in saying they cannot make their calling certain by good workes They know what salvation is as well as you and have as much reason to desire it They believe it as heartily as you that there is no good worke but shall have its proper reward and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternall reward without good workes and why then may not this Doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good workes 31 You say that they certainly believe that before any good works they are iustified But this is a calumny There is no Protestant but requires to Iustification Remission of sinnes and to Remission of sinnes they all require Repentance and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good worke being indeed if it be rightly understood and according to the sense of the word in Scripture an effectuall conversion from all sinne to all holinesse But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sinnes past and a bare purpose of amendment yet even this is a good worke and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sinnes and Remission of sinnes to justification cannot with candor be pretended to believe that they are justified before any good worke 32 You say They believe themselves iustified by faith alone and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves iustified Some peradventure doe so but withall they believe that that faith which is alone and unaccompanied with sincere and universall obedience is to be esteem'd not faith but presumption and is at no hand sufficient to justification that though Charity be not imputed unto justification yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified and that though in regard of the imperfection of it no man can be justified by it yet that on the other side no man can be justified without it So that upon the whole matter a man may truly and safely say that the
Doctrine of these Protestants taken altogether is not a Doctrine of Liberty not a Doctrine that turnes hope into presumptioÌ„ and carnall security though it may justly be feared that many licentious persons taking it by halfes have made this wicked use of it For my part I doe heartily wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever preach or print this Doctrine that Faith alone justifies unlesse he joynes this together with it that universall obedience is necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist. to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33 Whereas you say that some Protestants doe expresly affirme the former point to be the soule of the Church c. and that therefore they must want the Theologicall vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their Communion I Ans. They have great reason to believe the Doctrine of Iustification by faith only a Point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteeme it a principall and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousnesse which if it be imperfect will not justify but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and feare If this Doctrine be otherwise expounded then I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may doe truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian but that he did believe these divine truths That he must make his calling certain by good workes That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firme and a more unshaken assent then he does that himselfe is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himselfe justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity 〈◊〉 doe either would not rather forgoe his beliefe of these Doctrines then the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments then those which being the expresse words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrines doth very well qualify their perswasion of the latter and that the former as also the lives of many of them doe sufficiently testify are more effectuall to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filiall and modest assurance of Gods favour built upon the conscience of his love and fear then the latter can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to proscribe them from heaven upon triviall and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgement of our Brethren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God then a true judgement if it be uncharitable and and therefore shall alwaies choose if we doe erre to erre on the milder and more mercifull part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected then eject those that deserve to be retain'd 34 Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Iustification you must needs inferre that they want Vnity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I Answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Poliâ—rates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian in as much as it is indeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrine as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued But as the ancient Philosophers whose different opinions about the soule of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima and Cicero's Tusculan Questions notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule yet all of them had soules and soules of the same nature Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the braine or heart be the principall part of a man yet all of them have braines and have hearts and herein agree sufficiently So likewise though some Protestants esteeme that Doctrine the soule of the Church which others doe not so highly value yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule of the Church may be in both 〈◊〉 of them and though one account that a necessary truth which 〈◊〉 account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet this notwithstanding in those truths which are truly really necessary they may all agree For no Argument can be more sophisticall then this They differ in some points which they esteeme necessary Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so â—35 Now as concerning the other inference That they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I have said and prov'd formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagin or pretend that men should certainly know what is and what is not fundamentall They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture believe all things fundamentall and are at sufficient Vnity in matters of faith though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamentall and what is profitable nay though by error they mistake some vaine or perhaps hurtfull opinions for necessary and fundamentall Truths Besides I have shewed above that as Protestants doe not agree for you overreach in saying they cannot touching what points are fundamentall so neither doe you agree what points are defin'd so to be accounted and what are not nay nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended
wee may doe God and his Church more service by exactly discussing and fully clearing the truth in these few then by handling many after a sleight and perfunctory manner Secondly because the additioÌ„ of the Second Part whether for your purpose or mine is clearly unnecessary there being no understanding man Papist or Proâ—estant but will confesse that for as much as concernes the main Question now in agitation about the saveablenesse of Protestants if the first Part of your Book be answered there needes no reply to the Second as on the other side I shall willingly grant if I have not answered the First I cannot answer a great part of the Second Thirdly because the addition of the Second not only is unnecessary but in effect by your self confess'd to bee so For in your preamble to your Second Part you tell us That the substance of the present Controversie is handled in the first and therein also you pretend to have answered the chief grounds of D. Potters book So that in replying to your Second Part I shall doe litle else but pursue shadowes Fourthly because your Second Part setting aside Repetitions and References is in a manner made up of disputes about particular matters which you are very importunate to have forborn as suspecting at least pretending to suspect that they were brought in purposely by D. Potter to dazle the Reader 's eyes and distract his mind that hee might not see the clearnesse of the reasons brought in defence of the Generall Doctrine delivered in Charity Mistaken All which you are likely enough if there bee occasion to say again to mee and therefore I am resolv'd for once even to humour you so farre as to keepe my discourse within those very lists and limits which your self have prescrib'd and to deal with you upon no other arguments but only those wherein you conceive your chief advantage and principall strength and as it were your Sampson's lock to lye wherein if I gain the cause clearly from you as I verily hope by Gods help I shall doe it cannot but redound much to the honour of the truth maintain'd by me which by so weak a Champion can overcome such an Achilles for error even in his strongest holds For these reasons although I have made ready an answer to your Second Part and therein have made it sufficiently evident That for shifting evasions from D. Potters arguments for impertinent cavills and frivolous exceptions and injurious calumnies against him for misalleaging of Authors For proceeding upon false and ungrounded princiciples for making inconsequent and sophisticall deductions and in a word for all the vertues of an ill answer your Second Part is no way second to the First Yet notwithstanding all this anvantage I am resolv'd if you will give me leave either wholly to suppresse it or at least to deferre the publication of it untill I see what exceptions upon a twelve-months examinatioÌ„ for so long I am well assur'd you have had it in your hands you can take at this which is now published that so if my grounds bee discovered false I may give over building on them or if it shall be thought fit build on more securely when it shall appeare that nothing materiall and of moment is or can bee objected against them This I say upon a supposition that your self will allow these reasons for satisfying and sufficient and not repent of the motion which your self has made of reducing the Controversy between us to this short Issue But in case your mind be altered upon the least intimation you shall give mee that you doe not desire to have it out your desire shall prevail with me above all other reasons and you shall not fail to receive it with all convenient speed Only that my Answer may be compleat and that I may have all my work together and not be troubled my self nor enforc'd to trouble you with after-reckonings I would first entreat you to make good your Promise of not omitting to answer all the particles of D. Potters book which may any way import and now at least to take notice of some as it seemes to me not unconsiderable passages of it which between your first and second Part as it were betweene two stooles have beene suffer'd hitherto to fall to the ground and not beene vouchsaf'd any answer at all For after this neglectfull fashion you have passed by in silence First his discourse wherein he proves briefly but very effectually that Protestants may be sav'd and that the RomaÌ„ Church especially the Iesuits are very uncharitable S. 1. p. 6. 7. 8. 9. Secondly the authorities whereby he justifies That the ancient Fathers by the Roman understood alwaies a particular and never the Catholique Church to which purpose he alleageth the words of Ignatius Ambrose Innocentius Celestine Nicolaus S. 1. p. 10 Whereunto you say nothing neither doe you infringe his observation with any one instance to the contrary Thirdly the greatest and most substantiall part of his answers to the Arguments of Charity Mistaken built upon Deut. 17. Numb 16. Mat. 28. 20. Mat. 18. 17. and in particular many pregnant and convincing Texts of Scripture quoted in the margent of his book p. 25. to prove that the Iudges of the Synagogue whose Infallibility yet you make an Argument of yours and therefore must be more credible then yours are vainly pretended to have been infallible but as they were oblig'd to judg according to the Law so were obnoxious to deviations from it S. 2. p. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Fourthly his discourse wherein hee shewes the difference betweene the Prayers for the Dead used by the Ancients and those now in use in the Roman Church Fiftly the Authority of three Ancient and above twenty moderne Doctors of your own Church alleag'd by him to shew that in their opinion even Pagans and therefore much more erring Christians if their lives were morally honest by Gods extraordinary mercy and Christs merit may be saved S. 2. p. 45. Sixtly a great part of his discourse whereby he declares that actuall and externall communion with the Church is not of absolute necessity to Salvation nay that those might be saved whom the Church utterly refus'd to admit to her Communion S. 2. p. 46. 47. 48. 49. Seaventhly his discourse concerning the Churches latitude which hath in it a cleare determination of the maine Controversy against you For therein he proves plainly that all appertain to the Church who believe that Iesus is the Christ the sonne of God and Saviour of the world with submission to his Doctrine in mind and will which hee irrefragably demonstrates by many evident Texts of Scripture containing the substance of his Assertion even in termes S. 4. p. 114. 115. 116. 117. Eightly that wherein he shewes by many pertinent examples that grosse error and true Faith may bee lodged together in the same mind And that men are not chargeable with the damnable consequences of their erroneous opinions S. 4.
p. 122. Ninthly a very great part of his Chapter touching the dissensions of the Roman Church which he shewes against the pretences of Charity Mistaken to bee no lesse then ours for the importance of the matter and the pursuite of them to bee exceedingly uncharitable S. 6. p. 188. 189. 190. 191. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. Tenthly his clear refutation and just reprehension of the Doctrine of implicite Faith as it is deliver'd by the Doctors of your Church which he proves very consonant to the Doctrine of Heretiques and Infidels but evidently repugnant to the word of God Ibid. p. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. Lastly his discourse wherein hee shewes that it is unlawfull for the Church of after Ages to adde any thing to the Faith of the Apostles And many of his Arguments whereby hee proves that in the judgment of the Ancient Church the Apostles Creed was esteem'd a sufficient summary of the necessary Points of simple belief and a great number of great authorities to justifie the Doctrine of the Church of England touching the Canon of Scripture especially the Old Testament S. 7. p. 221 223. 228. 229. All these parts of Doctor Potter's book for reasons best known to your self you have dealt with as the Priest and Levite in the Gospell did with the wounded Samaritan that is only look't upon them and pass'd by But now at least when you are admonish't of it that my Reply to your second part if you desire it may be perfect I would entreat you to take them into your consideration and to make some shew of saying something to them least otherwise the world should interpret your obstinate silence a plaine confession that you can say nothing FINIS GOod reader through the Authors necessary absence for some weekes while this Book was printing and by reason of an uncorrected Copy sent to the Presse some errors have escap'd notwithstanding the Printers sollicitous and extraordinary care and the Correctors most assiduous diligence which I would intreat thee to correct according to this following direction Pag. Lin. Err. Corr. 6. 1. To the first and second Adde § 21. Vlt. To the ninth to the ninteenth To the ninteenth To the ninth 64. 21. Principall prudentiall 67. 29. Canoniz'd discanoniz'd 73. In marg posuit potuit 108. 21. ouâ— one 134. 9. In for 136. 9. some some thing 146. 6. a truth truths 150. 19. she there 157. 13. vowed avowed 158. Peâ—â—lt best least 168. 11 causa pro non causâ— non causa pro causa 176. 3. Atheists Antithâ—sis ib. 11. dele with  180. Antepen government communion 193. 19. that the. 198. 33. continue the immortall the 218. 44. profession pâ—â—fection 220. Post 53. scribd Ad § 19. Iâ— 11. Faire Faâ—ce Ib. 33. instruct mistrust 221. 38. which is which is the Church 225. 27. nay now 293. 43. so farre from farre from so 351. 11. exception exposition 361. Vlt. Canons Canon 372. 17. Foundation Fundation of 393. 32. dele whether  402 44. of themselves in the issue Survey of Religion Init. a See this acknowledg'd by Bellar de Script Ecclesâ—in Philastriâ— by Petavius Animad in Epiph de inscrip operis By S. Austin Lib. de Haeres Haer. 80 A generall consideration of D. Potters Answere Concerning my Reply Rules to be observed if D. Potter intend a Rejoynder a Mat. 5. 19. * I mean the Divines of Doway whose profession we have in your Belgick Expurgatorius p. 12. in censura Bertrami in these words Seeing in other ancient Catholiques we tolerate extenuate excuse very many errors and devising some shift often deny theÌ„ and put upon them a convenient sense when they are objected to us in disputations and conflicts with our adversaries we see no reason why Bertram may not deserve the same equity In the place above quoted This great diversity of opinions among you touching this matter if any maÌ„ doubt of it let him read Franciscus Picus Mirandula in l. Theorem in Exposit. Theor quarti and T h. Waldensis Tom. 3. De Sacramentalibus doct 3. fol. 5. andhee shall bee fully satisfied that I haue done you no injury Quiâ— tulerit Gracchum c. a Pag. 11. b Ibid. c Pag. 4. Edit 1. d Pag. 20. e Pag. 81. g Sleidan l. 6. fol. 84. h See pag. 39. i Art 28. k Art 31. l S. Greg. Hom. 7. in Ezec. a Pag. 131. b In his first book of Eccles Policy Sect. 1 â— p. 68. c Ibid. lib. 2. Sect. 4. p. 102. d l. 3. Sect. 8. pag. 1. 146. et alibi e Advers Stapl. l. 2. c. 6. Pag. 270. Pag. 357. f Adversus Stapl. l. 2. c. 4. pag. 300. g lib. de cap. Babyl tom 2. Wittemb f. 88. h In his answer to a couÌ„terfeit Catholique pag. 5. i Epist. cont Anabap. ad duos Parochos tom 2. Germ. Wittemb k Praefat. in epist. lac in edit Ieâ—ensi l In Euchirid pag. 63. m In examin Conc. Trid. part 1. pag. 55. n Ibid. o Apud Euseb l. 4. hist. c. 26. p In Synop. q ln carm de genuinis Scripturis r lib. de servo arbitrio cont Etas tom 2. Witt. fol. 471. s In latinis sermonibus convivialibus Francof in 8. impr Anno 1571. t In Germanicis colloq Lutheri ab Aurifabro editis Francosurt tit de libris veteris novi Test. fol. 379. u Ib. tit de Patriarchis Prophet fol. 282. w Tit. de lib. Veâ— Nov. Test. x Fol. 380. y Pag. 141. z Heb. v. 1 a Pag. 141 b Cont. Adimantn c. 17. c l. 2. haeretic fab d lib. 6. cap. 10. e lib. 6. cap. 11. f Dist. Can. Sancta Româ—na h In his defence art 4. Pag. 31. i Pag. 234. k In Synopsi l Can. 47. m Cont. â—p Fundam c. 5. n Tom. 1. fol. 135. o Instit. c. 6. §. 11. p Instit c. 7. §. 12. q lib. de sancta Scriptura p. 52. r Tast. 1. Sect. 10. subd 4 joyned with tract 2. cap. 2. Sect. 10. subd 2. s Lib. cont Zwingl deverit corp Christiin Euchar t In his answere unto M. Iohn Burges pag. 94. u Ibid. w In his Preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastâ—call Pollicy Sect. 6. 26. x In his treatise of the Church In his Epistle dedicatory to the L. Archbishop y Cont. ep Fund cap. 5. z Lib. de util â—â—e cap. 14. a Tâ—m â— Wittemberg fol. 375. b In lib. de principiis Christian. dogm lib 6â— 13. c De Sacra Scriptura pag. 529. d In his true differâ—nce part 2. e Tract 2. cap 1. Sect. 1. f Lib. 32. cont Faust. g Pag. 247 h De test anim cap. 5. Pag. 24. k Heb. 13. l Cant. 2. m 1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 4. n Mat. 12. o Ioan. c. 10. p Lib. 5. c. 4. q In his defence of M. Hookers books art 4. p. â—1 r De unit Eccles c. 22. * Some answer so but he doth not a The first outward motive not the last
it to be Canonicall whether it be True If the former sense were yours I must then againe distinguish of the terme received For it may signify either received by some particular Church or by the present Church Vniversall or the Church of all Ages If you meant the word in either of the former senses that which you say is not tâ—â—e A man may justly and reasonably doubt of some Texts or some Book received by some particular Church or by the Vniversall Church of this present time whether it be Canonicall or no and yet haue just reason to belieue no reason to doubt but that other Books are Canonicall As Eusebius perhaps had reason to doubt of the Epistle of S. Iames the Church of Rome in Hierom's time of the Epistle to the Hebr. And yet they did not doubt of all the Books of the Canon nor had reason to doe so If by Received you meant Received by the Church of all Ages I grant he that doubts of any one such Book has as much reason to doubt of all But yet here again I tell you that it is possible a man may doubt of one such book and yet not of all because it is possible men may doe not according to reason If you meant your words in the latter sense then I confesse he that belieues such a Book to be Canonicall i. e. the word of God and yet to make an impossible supposition believes it not to be true if he will doe according to reason must doubt of all the rest and belieue none For there being no greater reason to believe any thing true then because God hath said it nor no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but only because it is Gods word hee that doubts of the Truth of any thing said by God hath as much reason to belieue nothing that he saies and therefore if he will doe according to reason neither must nor can believe any thing he saies And upon this ground you conclude rightly that the infallibility of true Scripture must be Vniversall and not confin'd to points fundamentall 36 And this Reason why we should not refuse to beleiue any part of Scripture upon pretence that the matter of it is not Fundamentall you confesse to be convincing But the same reason you say is as convincing for the Vniversall infallibility of the Church For say you unlesse shee be Infallible in all things we cannot belieue her in any one But by this reason your Proselytes knowing you are not Infallible in all things must not nor cannot belieue you in any thing Nay you your selfe must not belieue your selfe in any thing because you know that you are not Infallible in all things Indeed if you had said wee could not rationally belieue her for her own sake and upon her own word and authority in any thing I should willingly grant the consequence For an authority subject to errour can be no firm or stable foundation of my beliefe in any thing and if it were in any thing then this authority being one the same in all proposalls I should haue the same reason to belieue all that I haue to belieue one and therefore must either doe unreasonably in believing any one thing upon the sole warrant of this authority or unreasonably in not believing all things equally warranted by it Let this therefore be granted and what will come of it Why then you say we cannot belieue her in propounding Canonicall Books If you mean still as you must doe unlesse you play the Sophister not upon her own Authority I grant it For we belieue Canonicall Books not upon the Authority of the present Church but upon Vniversall Tradition If you mean Not at all and that with reason we cannot believe these Books to be Canonicall which the Church proposes I deny it There is no more consequence iâ—â—he Argument then in this The Divell is not infallible therefore if he saies there is one God I cannot believe him No Geometritian is Infallible in all things therefore not in these things which the domonstrates M. Knot is not Infallible in all things therefore he may not believe that he wrote a Book entituled Charity Maintained 37 But though the reply be good Protestants cannot make use of it with any good coherence to this distinction and some other Doctrine of theirs because they pretend to be able to tell what points are Fundamentall and what not and therefore though they should believe Scripture erroneous in others yet they might be sure it err'd not in these To this I answer That if without dependance on Scripture they did know what were Fundamentall and what not they might possibly believe the Scripture true in Fundamentalls and erroneous in other things But seeing they ground their beliefe that such and such things only are Fundamentalls only upon Scripture and goe about to prove their assertion true only by Scripture then must they suppose the Scripture true absolutely and in all things or else the Scripture could not be a sufficient warrant to them to believe this thing that these only points are Fundamentall For who would not laugh at them if they should argue thus The Scripture is true in something the Scripture saies that these points only are Fundamentall therefore this is true that these only are so For every Fresh-man in Logick knowes that from meer particulars nothing can be certainly concluded But on the other side this reason is firme and demonstrative The Scripture is true in all things But the Scripture saies that these only points are the Fundamentalls of Christian Religion therefore it is true that these only are so So that the knowledge of Fundamentalls being it selfe drawen from Scripture is so farre from warranting us to believe the Scripture is or may be in part True and in part False that it selfe can have no foundation but the Vniversall truth of Scripture For to be a Fundamentall truth presupposes to be a truth now I cannot know any Doctrine to be a divine and supernaturall Truth on a true part of Christianity but only because the Scripture saies so which is all true Therefore much more can I not know it to be a Fundamentall truth 33 Ad § 16. To this Parag. I answer Though the Church being not Infallible I cannot believe her in every thing she saies yet I can and must believe her in every thing she proves either by Scripture Reason or universall Tradition be it Fundamentall or be it not Fundamentall This you say we cannot in points not Fundamentall because in such we believe she may erre But this I know we can because though she may erre in some things yet she does not erre in what she proves though it be not Fundamentall Again you say we cannot doe it in Fundamentalls because we must know what points be Fundamentall before we goe to learn of her Not so but I must learn of the Church or of some part of the Church or I
And presently after these two things retained will keep such men pure and uncorrupted that is neither doing ill nor approving it And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawfull certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing unity either with you or with God and whether of these is rather to be done be ye judges 11 Irenaeus also saies not simply which only would doe you service there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation as to justify a separation from them who will not reforme But only they cannot make any corruption so great as is the pernitiousnesse of a Schisme Now They here is a relative and hath an antecedent expressed in Irenaeus which if you had been pleased to take notice of you would easily have seene that what Irenaeus saies falls heavy upon the Church of Rome but toucheth Protestants nothing at all For the men he speaks of are such as Propter modicas quaslibet causas for trifling or small causes divide the body of Christ such as speak of peace and make warre such as straine at gnatts swallow Camels And these faith he can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervaile the danger of a division Now seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome are as we pretend and are ready to justify because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry Impiety and most cruell Tyranny both upon the bodies and soules of men Who can say that the causes of our separation may be justly esteemed Modicae quaelibet causae On the other side seeing the Bishop of Rome who was contemporary to Irenaeus did as much as in him lay cut off from the Churches unity many great Churches for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter upon a difference Non de Catholico dogmâ—te sed de Ritu vel Ritus potiùs tempore not about any Catholique doctrine but only a Ceremony or rather about the time of observing it so Petavius values it which was just all one as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them And seeing he was reprehended sharpely and bitterly for it by most of the Bishops of the world as Eusebius testifies and as Cardinall Perron though mincing the matter yet confesseth by this very Ierenaeus himselfe in particular admonished that for so small a cause propter tam modicam causam he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church and lastly seeing the Ecclesiasticall story of those times mentions no other notable example of any such Schismaticall presumption but this of Victor certainly we have great inducement to imagine that Irenaeus in this place by you quoted had a speciall aime at the Bishop and Church of Rome Once this I am sure of that the place fits him and many of his successors as well as if it had been made purposely for them And this also that he which finds fault with them who separate upon small causes implies cleerely that he conceived there might be such causes as were great and sufficient And that then a Reformation was to be made notwithstanding any danger of division that might insue upon it 12 Lastly S. Denis of Alexandria saies indeed and very well that all things should be rather indured then we should consent to the division of the Church I would adde Rather then consent to the continuation of the division if it might be remedied But then I am to tell you that he saies not All things should rather be done but only All things should rather be indured or suffered wherein he speaks not of the evill of sinne but of Pain and Misery Not of tolerating either Error or Sinne in others though that may be lawfull much lesse of joyning with others for quietnesse sake which only were to your purpose in the profession of Errour and practise of sinne but of suffering any affliction nay even martyrdome in our own persons rather then consent to the division of the Church Omnia incommoda so your own Christophorson enforced by the circumstances of the place translates Dionysius his words All miseries should rather be endured then we should consent to the Churches division 13 Ad § 9. In the next Paragraph you affirme two things but prove neither unlesse a vehement Asseveration may passe for a weake proofe You tell us first that the Doctrine of the totall deficiency of the visible Church which is maintained by divers chiefe Protestants implies in it vast absurdity or rather sacrilegious Blasphemy But neither doe the Protestants alleaged by you maintain the deficiency of the Visible Church but only of the Churches visibility or of the Church as it is Visible which so acute a man as you now that you are minded of it I hope will easily distinguish Neither doe they hold that the visible Church hath failed totally and from its essence but only from its purity and that it fell into many corruptions but yet not to nothing And yet if they had held that there was not only no pure visible Church but none at all surely they had said more then they could justify but yet you doe not shew neither can I discover any such Vast absurdity or Sacrilegious Blasphemy in this Assertion You say secondly that the Reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrine was a desperate voluntary necessity because they were resolved not to acknowledge the Roman to be the true Church and were convinced by all manner of evidence that for diverse ages before Luther there was no other But this is not to dispute but to divine and take upon you the property of God which is to know the hearts of men For why I pray might not the Reason hereof rather be because they were convinced by all manner of evidence as Scripture Reason Antiquity that all the visible Churches in the world but aboue all the Roman had degenerated from the purity of the Gospell of Christ and thereupon did conclude there was no visible Church meaning by no Church none free from corruption and conformable in all things to the doctrine of Christ. 14 Ad § 10. Neither is there any repugnance but in words only between these as you are pleased to stile them exterminating Spirits and those other whom out of Curtesy you intitle in your 10. § more moderate Protestants For these affirming the Perpetuall Visibility of the Church yet neither deny nor doubt of her being subject to manifold and grievous corruptions and those of such a nature as were they not mitigated by invincible or at least a very probable ignorance none subject to them could be saved And they on the other side denying the Churches Visibility yet plainly affirme that they conceive very good hope of the Salvation of many of their ignorant