that those amongst you who were invincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy have their errors pardoned and their souls saved And this is all he says and this you confess to be all he says in divers places of your Book which is no more than you your self do and must affirm of Protestants and yet I believe you will not suffer us to inferr 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 fundamental or necessary to salvation And if we should draw this consequence from your concession certainly we should do you injury in regard many things may in themselves and in ordinary course be necessary to salvation to those that have means to attain them as your Church generally hath which yet by accident to these which were by some impregnable impediment debarred of these means 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 and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrin or acknowledge there was no visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Paul's 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 confess that there is no body To which the foot may 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 gracious 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 confess 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 self in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greeks Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the visible Church For all this discourse proceeds upon a false and vain supposition and begs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greek c. must be always 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 always some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrin might be wrought upon prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to go to yours rather than the Greek Church or any other which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours that I do not understand unless it be for the reason which Aeneus Sylvius gave why more held the Pope above a Council than a Council above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councils 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 meer favour that there must be always some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errours in doctrin and that Protestants had not always 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 than this If you will leave England you must of necessity go to Rome And yet with this wretched Fallacy have I been sometimes abused my self and known many other poor souls 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 always be held captive under such miserable delusions 28. We see then how unsuccessful 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 kind which you build upon D. Potter's own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schism 29. But let the understanding Reader take with him but three or four 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. 1. That not every separation but only a causeless separation from the external Communion of any Church is the Sin of Schism 31. 2. 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. 3. That to leave the Church and to leave the external 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 have 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 repel 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 applyed to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madness moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoyd the Communion of bad men Whereunto one fair answer to let pass many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospel as it is not is impertinently applyed 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 instead of Donatus in the later part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your self took notice of this exception of disparity 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 Doctrin if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you do understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaim as you do than to dispute against it But these men you say must
the means by Protestants appointed I have told you before that all this is vain and hypocritical if as your manner and your doctrin is you give not your selves liberty of judgment in the use of these means if you make not your selves Judges of but only Advocates for the Doctrin of your Church refusing to see what these means shew you if it any way make against the Doctrin of your Church though it be as clear as the light at noon Remove Prejudice eaven the Ballance and hold it eaven make it indifferent to you which way you go to heaven so you go the true which Religion be true so you be of it then use the means 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 do nor have any possible means to agree as long as you are left to your selves The first is very true That while you differ you do not agree But for the second That you have no possible means of agreement as long as you are left to your selves i. e. to your own reasons and judgment this sure is very false neither do you offer any proof of it unless you intended this that you do 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 means by you mentioned do agree concerning the sense of these places therefore there is a possible means of agreement and therefore you also if you would use the same means with the same minds might agree so far as it is necessary and it is not necessary that you should agree farther Or if there be no possible means to agree about the sense of these Texts whilst we 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 self same Texts but in the page next before These words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is Universally infallible A strange forgetfulness that the same man almost in the same breath should say of the same words They seem cleerly enough to prove such a Conclusion true and yet that three indifferent men all presum'd to be lovers of Truth and industrious searchers of it should have no possible means 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 Souls hath left no certain infallible means to decide both this and all o'her 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 than Gods Commandements make Certainly God is no way oblig'd either by his Promise or his Love to give us all things that we may imagine would be convenient for us as formerly I have proved at large It is sufficient that he denyes us nothing necessary to Salvation Deus non deficit in necessariis nee redundat in superfluis So D. Stapleton But that the ending of all Controversies or having a certain means of ending them is necessary to Salvation that you have 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 fair shew And as little care how you commit those faults your self which you condemn in others For you here charge them with great impiety who imagine that God the lover of Souls hath left no infallible means to determine all differences arising about the interpretation of Scripture or upon any other occasion And yet afterwards being demanded by D. Potter Why the Questions between the Jesuits and Dominicans remain undetermined You return him this cross 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 means to decide all differences I may answer It seems you do not believe your self For in this Controversie which is of as high consequence as any can be you seem to be doubtful whether there be any means to determine it On the other side when you ask D. Potter Who assured him that there is any means 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 means 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 Jesuits which includes a difference about the sense of many texts of Scripture and many other matters of moment was not included under this and all other differences I cannot imagine Yet if you can find out any thus much at least we shall gain by it that general speeches are not always to be understood generally but sometimes with exceptions and limitations 89. But if there be any infallible means to decide all differences I beseech you name them You say it is to consult and hear Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Infallibility But suppose the difference be as here it is whether your Church be infallible what shall decide that If you would say as you should do Scripture and Reason then you foresee that you should be forced to grant that these are fit means to decide this Controversie and therefore may be as fit to decide others Therefore to avoid this you run into a most ridiculous absurdity and tell us that this difference also Whether the Church be infallible as well as others must be agreed by a submissive acknowledgment of the Churches Infallibility As if you should have said My Bretheren I perceive there is a great Contention amongst you whether the Roman Church be infallible If you will follow my advice I will shew you a ready means to end it you must first agree that the Roman Church is infallible and then your contention whether the Roman Church be infallible will quickly be at an end Verily a most excellent advice and most compendious way of ending all Controversies even without troubling the Church to determine them For why may not you say in all other differences as you have done in this Agree that the Pope is supream head of the Church That the substance of the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is turned into the Body and Blood of Christ That the Communion is to be given to
be confuted in their errors and perswaded out of them but no mans error can be confuted who together with his error doth not believe and grant some true Principle that contradicts his Error for nothing can be proved to him who grants nothing neither can there be as all men know any rational discourse but out of grounds agreed upon by both parts Therefore it is not impossible but absolutely certain that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions Fifthly It is evident neither can you without extream madness and uncharitableness deny that we believe the Bible those Books I mean which we account Canonical Otherwise why dispute you with us out of them as out of a common Principle Either therefore you must retract your opinion and acknowledge that the same man at the same time may believe contradictions or else you will run into a greater inconvenience and be forced to confess that no part of our Doctrine contradicts the Bible Sixthly I desire you to vindicate from contradiction these following Assertions That there should be Length and nothing long Breadth and nothing broad Thickness and nothing thick Whiteness and nothing white Roundness and nothing round Weight and nothing heavy Sweetness and nothing sweet Moisture and nothing moist Fluidness and nothing flowing many Actions and no Agent many Passions and no Patient That is that there should be a long broad thick white round heavy sweet moist flowing active passive Nothing That Bread should be turned into the substance of Christ and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ neither the matter nor the form nor the Accidents of Bread be made either the matter or the Form or the Accidents of Christ That Bread should be turned into nothing and at the same time with the same action turned into Christ and yet Christ should not be nothing That the same thing at the same time should have its just dimensions and just distance of its parts one from another and at the same time not have it but all its parts together in one and the self same point That the body of Christ which is much greater should be contained wholly and in its full dimensions without any alteration in that which is lesser and that not once only but as many times over as there are several points in the Bread and Wine That the same thing at the same time should be wholly above it self and wholly below it self within it self and without it self on the right hand and on the left hand and round about it self That the same thing at the same time should move to and from it self and lie still Or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space and yet not move That it should be brought from heaven to earth and yet not come out of Heaven nor be at all in any of the middle spaces between Heaven and Earth That to be one should be to be undivided from it self and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it self That a thing may be and yet be no where That a Finite thing may be in all places at once That a Body may be in a place and have there its dimensions and colour and all other qualities and yet that it is not in the power of God to make it visible and tangible there nor capable of doing or suffering any thing That there should be no certainty in our senses and yet that we should know something certainly and yet know nothing but by our senses That that which is and was long ago should now begin to be That that is now to be made of nothing which is not nothing but something That the same thing should be before and after it self That it should be truly and really in a place and yet without Locality Nay that he which is Omnipotent should not be able to give it Locality in this place where it is as some of you hold Or if he can as others say he can that it should be possible that the same man for example You or I may at the same time be awake at London and not awake but asleep at Rome There run or walk here not run or walk but stand still sit or lie along There study or write here do neither but dine or sup There speak here be silent That he may in one place freeze for cold in another place burn with heat That he may be drunk in one place and sober in another Valiant in one place and a Coward in another A Thief in one place and honest in another That he may be a Papist and go to Mass in Rome A Protestant and go to Church in England That he may die in Rome and live in England or dying in both places may go to Hell from Rome and to Heaven from England That the Body and Soul of Christ should cease to be where it was and yet not go to another place nor be destroyed All these and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable and most of them the acknowledged Consequences of your Doctrin of Transubstantiation as is explained one way or other by your School-men Now I beseech you Sir to try your skill and if you can compose their repugnance and make peace between them certainly none but you shall be Catholique Moderator But if you cannot do it and that after an intelligible manner then you must give me leave to believe that either you do not believe Transubstantiation or else that it is no contradiction that men should subjugate their understandings to the belief of contradictions 47. Lastly I pray tell me whether you have not so much Charity in store for the Bishop of Armach and D. Porter as to think that they themselves believe this saying which the one preacht and printed the other reprinted and as you say applauded If you think they do then certainly you have done unadvisedly either in charging it with a foul contradiction or in saying it is impossible that any man should at once believe contradictions Indeed that men should not assent to contradictions and that it is unreasonable to do so I willingly grant But to say it is impossible to be done is against every mans experience and almost as unreasonable as to do the thing which is said to be impossible For though perhaps it may be very difficult for a man in his right wits to believe a contradiction expressed in terms especially if he believe it to be a contradiction yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition to perswade themselves upon slight and trivial grounds that these or these though they seem contradictions yet indeed are not so and so to believe them or if the plain repugnance of them be veiled or disguised a little with some empty unintelligible non-sense distinction or if it be not exprest but implyed nor direct but by consequence so that the parties to whose faith the propositions are
of Schism it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this Division must be so likewise Which is not so certain as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any State Civil or Ecclesiastical do commit a great fault whereof notwithstanding 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 have 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 faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the King of Spain 5. Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteem neighbours do concur to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteem those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6. Fifthly That all the Members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mystical body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7. Sixthly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithful 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. Seventhly 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. Eighthly That all the Members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommmunicated is not in the Churches Communion yet he is still a Member of the Church and divers time it hath happened as in the case of Chrysostom 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 shew or pretence of proof The rest is impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I pass to the eighth Section 10. Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacy 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 falshood which yet are maintained by more than 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. Austin c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. inferrs out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Unity to let pass your want of diligence in quoting the 62. Chapter of that Book which hath but 23. in it to pass by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapter are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he says not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Unity which only were for your purpose but only in such a special case as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can do them no spiritual hurt to the intent they may not be separated from these who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Unity Which very words do clearly give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Unity with bad men without spiritual 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. Austin's 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 joyned with them that is if he commit any evil with them or favour them which do commit it But if he do neither of these he is not joyned with them 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 unlawful 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 says not simply which only would do you service there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation as to justifie a separation from them who will not reform But only they cannot make any corruption so great as is the pernitiousness of a Schism 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 seen that what Iraeneus says 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 war such as strain at gnats and swallow Camels And these saith he can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail 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 justifie because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry Impiety and most cruel Tyranny both upon the bodies and souls 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 dogmate 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 sharply and bitterly for it by most of the Bishops of the world as Eusebius testifies Euseb hist l. 5. c. 24. Perron Replic 3.
of a subject and not from the subject it self So is it also against reason to deny that a man may by an usualphrase phrase of speech forsake any custom or quality good or bad either proper to himself or common to himself with any company and yet never truly or properly forsake either his company or himself Thus if all the Jesuits in the Society were given to write Sophistically yet you might leave this ill custom 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 over-run with tares and weeds of superstitions and corruptions but that some members of it might reform 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 and sensible a Truth that this thing is possible that no man in his wits will be perswaded out of it with all the Quirks 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 Qu. 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 himself from the Churches external Communion as she is corrupted and yet continue in that Churches external Communion which in this external Communion is corrupted But we that say only the whole Church being corrupted some parts of it might and did reform themselves and yet might and did continue parts of the Church though separated from the external communion of the other parts which would not reform 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 and 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 himself or that a sinner cannot leave his sin 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 shall find us apt enough to believe that the particular parts of the visible Church could not reform themselves but they must of necessity become no parts of it But until we see this done you must pardon us if we choose to believe sense rather than 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 controversie of faith do 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 meerly impertinent S. Cyprians words are The Church he speaks of the particular Church or Diocess 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 lawful Ordination Novatianus is not in the Church And now having related the words I am only to remember the Reader that your business was to prove it impossible For a man to forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church and 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 cleer that this our chiefest Answer changeth the very state of the Question confoundeth internal Acts of the understanding with external dieds doth not distinguish between Schism and Heresie 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 needful then briefly thus We do 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 external communion which we confess impossible because these corruptions were in her communion But the Question was Whether they might forsake sake 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 do not confound internal Acts of understanding with external 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 External 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 external Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two Men or Churches divided in external communion can be both true parts of the Catholique Church 51. We are not to learn the difference between Schism and Heresie for Heresie we conceive An obstinate defence of any error against any necessary Article of the Christian faith and Schism A causless 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 Schismaticks for refusing to joyn with you in the profession of these Errors and the practise of these corruptions And therefore you must free either us from Schism or your selves from error at least from requiring the profession of it as a condition of your communion 52. Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the external communion of the Visible Church add which external communion was corrupted and we shall confess 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 our selves out-lawes from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of our separation from the external communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches
without which there can be no hope of Salvation 30 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must de because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth lose all Divine saith is a very true doctrin delivered by Catholique Divines with so general a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelical Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether (o) 23 q. â— aâ—â— 3. in corp he who denieth one Article of saith may retain saith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumento sed contra because As deadly sin is opposite to charity so to deny one Article of saith is opposite to saith But charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin Therefore faith doth not remain after the denial of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formal Motive and Object thereof which Motive being taken away the nature of the habit cannot remain But the formal object of saith is the supreme Truth as it is manifesied in Scriptures and in the doctrin of the Church which proceed from the same supreme Verity Whosoever therefore doth not relie upon the doctrin of the Church which proceeds from the supreme Verity manifested in Scripture as upon an infallible Rule he hath not the habit of faith but believes those things which belong to faith by some other means than by faith as if one should remember some conclusion and not know the reason of that demonstration it is clear that he hath not certain Knowledge but only Opinion Now it is manifest that he who relies on the doctrin of the Church as upon an infallible Rule will yield 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 he doth not relie upon the doctrin of the Church as upon an infallible Rule but only upon his own will And so it is clear that an Heretique who with pertinacity denieth one Article of saith is not ready to follow the doctrin 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 faith but a kind of Opinion or his own Will Thus far S. Thomas And afterward A man doth believe (q) Ad. 2. all the Articles of faith for one and the self same reason to wit for the Prime Verity proposed to us in the Scripture understood aright according to the Doctrin of the Church and therefore whosoever falls from this reason or motive is totally deprived of saith From this true doctrin we are to infeâ—r that to retain or want the substance oâ— faith doth not consist in the matter or multitude of the Articles but in the opposition against God's divine testimony which is involved in every least error against faith And since some Protestants must needs eâ—r and that they have no certain rule to know why rather one than another it manifestly follows that none of them have any Certainty for the substance of their faith in any one point Moreover D. Potter being forced to confess that the Roman Church wants not the substance of faith it follows that she doth not err in any one point against faith because as we have seen out of S. Thomas every such error destroys the substance of faith Now if the Roman Church did not err in any one point of faith it is manifest that Protestants err in all those points wherein they are contrary to her And this may suffice to prove that the faith of Protestants wants Infallibility They want the second Condition of Faith Obscurity 31 And now for the second Condition of faith I say If Protestants have Certainly they want Obscurity and so have not that faith which as the Apostle saith is of things not appearing or noâ— necessitating our understanding to an assent For the whole edifice of the faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of these Canonical Scriptures is clear and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation Now thâ—se Principles being once supposed it clearly followeth that what Protestants believe 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 certain and evident that whatsoever is contained in these Books is true Which Conclusion I take for a Major 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 Original sin c. are contained in these Books Thereâ—ore 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 natural discourse but only to the eye of reason cleared by grace as you speak For supernatural evidence no less yea rather more draws and excludes obscurity than natural evidence doth neither can the party so enlightned be said voluntarily to caprivate 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 clear a light And therefore your imaginary faith is not the true faith defined by the Apostle but an invention of your own Their faith wants Prudence 32 That the faith of Protestants wanteth the third Condition which was Prudence is deduced from all that hitherto hâ—th been said What wisdom 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 Universality of Time and Place A Church which if it be 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 perpetual Existence and Being To leave I say such a Church and frame a Community without either Unity or means to procure it a Church which at Luther's first re-revolt had no larger extent than where his body was a Church without Universality 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 or Doctrin What wisdom was it to follow such men as Luther in an opposition against the Visible Church of Christ begun upon meer passion What wisdom is it to receive from Us a Church Ordination Scriptures
the Roman Doctrin have to abuse the World To the fourth All those were not a See this acknowledged by Bellar. de Script Eccles in Philastrio By Petavius Animad in Epiph. de inscrip operis By S. Austin Lib. de Haer. Haer. 80. Heretiques which by Philastrius Epiphanius or S. Austin were put in the Catalogue of Heretiques To the fifth Kings and Nations have been and may be converted by men of contrary Religions To the sixth The Doctrin of Papists is confessed by Papists contrary to the Fathers in many points To the seventh The Pastors of a Church cannot but have authority from it to Preach against the abuses of it whether in Doctrin or Practice if there be any in it Neither can any Christian want an ordinary commission from God to do a necessary work of Charity after a peaceable manner when there is no body else that can or will do it In extraordinary cases extraordinary courses are not to be disallowed If some Christian Lay-man should come into a Countrey of Infidels and had ability to perswade them to Christianity Who would say he might not use it for want of Commission To the eighth Luther's conference with the Devil might be for ought I know nothing but a melancholy Dream If it were reall the Devil might perswade Luther from the Masse hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it Or that others would make his disswasion from it an Argument for it as we see Papists do and be afraid of following Luther as confessing himself to have been perswaded by the Devill To the ninth Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault than 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 find this not only a better but the only means to suppress Heresie 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 than this were required 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 AUTHOR of CHARITY MAINTAINED His Preface to the READER GIve me leave good Reader to inform thee by way of Preface of three Points The first concerns D. Potters Answer to Charity Mistaken The second relates to this Reply of mine And the third contains some Premonitions or Prescriptions in case D. Potter or any in his behalf think fit to Rejoyn 2. For the first point concerning D. Potters Answer I say in general reserving particulars to their proper places that in his whole Book 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 several professions And therefore Charity Mistaken judiciously pressing those particulars wherein the difficulty doth precisely consist proves in general that there is but one true Church that all Christians are obliged to hearken to her that she must be ever visible and infallible that to separate ones self from her communion is Schism and to dissent from her Doctrin 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 Fundamental and not Fundamental is wholly vain as it is applyed by Protestants These I say and some other general grounds Charity Mistaken handles and out of them doth clearly 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 destroyes 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 souls which he deceives with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation in different Faiths and Religions And this Charity Mistaken performed exactly according to that which appears to have been his design which was not to descend to particular disputes and D. Potter affectedly does namely Whether or no the Roman-Church be the only true Church of Christ and much lesse Whether general Councels be infallible whether the Pope may erre in his Decrees common to the whole Church whether he be above a General Council whether all points of Faith be contained in Scripture whether Faith be resolved into the authority of the Church as into his last formal 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 draws by violence into his Book and he might have brought in Pope Joan or Antichrist or the Jews who are permitted to live in Rome which are common Themes for men that want better matter as D. Potter was fain to fetch in the aforesaid Controversies that so he might dazle the eyes and distract the minde of the Reader and hinder him from perceiving that in his whole answer he uttereth 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 affirm plainly 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 grant that those very particulars to which he digresseth are not Fundamental errors though it should be granted that they be Errors which indeed are Catholique Verities For since they bâ— not Fundamental not destructive of Salvation what imports it Whether we hold them or no for as much as concerns our possibility to be saved 3. In one thing only he will perhaps seem to have touched the point in question to wit in his distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental because some may think that a difference in points which are not Fundamental breaks not the Unity 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
the Jewish Church endued with an absolutely infallible direction in case 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 successively upon several occasions and some after the decease of most of the Apostles and after they were written they were not presently known 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 Controversies in Religion That sometime Churches had one Judge of Controversies and others another That with moneths or years as new Canonical Scripture grew to be published the Church altered her whole Rule of Faith or Judge of Controversies After the Apostles time and after the writing of Scriptures Heresies would be sure to rise requiring in God's Church for their discovery and condemnation Infallibility either to write new Canonical Scripture as was done in the Apostles time by occasion of emergent Heresies or Infallibility to interpret Scriptures already written or without Scripture by divine unwritten Traditions and assistance of the holy Ghost to determine all Controversies as Tertullian saith The soul is h De test aniâ— cap. 5. before the letter and speech before Books and sense before style Certainly such addition of Scripture with derogation or substraction from the former power and infallibility of the Church would have brought to the world division in matters of faith and the Church had rather lost than gained by holy Scripture which ought to be farr from our tongues and thoughts it being manifest that for decision of Controversies Infallibility setled in a living Judge is incomparably more useful and fit than if it were conceived as inherent in some inanimate writing Is there such repugnance betwixt Infallibility of 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 milk of sacred Writ No No. Her Infallibility was and is derived from an inexhausted Fountain If Protestants will have the Scripture alone for their Judge let them first produce some Scripture affirming that by the entring thereof Infallibility went out of the Church D. Potter may remember what himself teacheth That the Church is still endued with Infallibility in Points Fundamental 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 coming of Scripture was deprived of Infallibility in some Points and not in others He affirmeth that the Jewish Synagogue retained infallibility in herself notwithstanding the writing of the Old Testament and will he so unworthily and unjustly deprive the Church of Christ of Infallibility by reason of the New Testament Especially if we consider that in the Old Testament Laws Ceremonies Rites Punishments Judgements Sacraments Sacrifices c. were more particularly and minutely delivered to the Jews than 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 than the Jewish Synagogue D. Potter i Pag. 24. against this argument drawn from the power and infallibility of the Synagogue objects That we might as well inserr that Christians must have one Soveraign Prince over all because the Jews had one chief Judge But the disparity is very clear The Synagogue was a type and figure of the Church of Christ not so their civil Government of Christian Common-wealths or Kingdoms The Church succeeded to the Synagogue but not Christian Princes to Jewish Magistrates And the Church is compared to a house or k Heb. 13. family to an l Cant. 2. Army to a m 1 Cor. 10. Ephes 4. body to a n Mat. 12. kingdom c. all which require one Master one General one head one Magistrate one spiritual King as our blessed Saviour with fict Unum ovile o Joan. c. 10. joyned Unus Pastor One Sheepsold One Pastour But all distinct Kingdoms or Common-wealths are not one Army Family c. And finally it is necessary to Salvation that all have recourse to one Church but for temporal weale there is no need that all submit or depend upon one temporal Prince Kingdom 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 Kingdoms have their several Laws different governments diversity of Powers Magistracy c. And so this objection returneth upon D. Potter For as in the One Community of the Jews there was one Power and Judge to end debates and resolve 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 p Lib. 5. c. 4. in these words What if the Apostles had not lest Scriptures ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches to which order many Nations yield assent who believe in Christ having Salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit of God without letters or lake and diligent keeping ancient Tradition It is easie to receive the truth from God's Church seeing the Apostles have most fully deposited in her as in a rich store-house all things belonging to truth For what if there should arise any contention of some small question ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches and from them to receive what is certain and clear concerning the present question 25. Besides all this the doctrine of Protestants is destructive of it self For either they have certain and infallible means not to err in interpreting Scripture or they have not If not then the Scripâ—ure to them cannot be a sufficient ground for infallible Faith nor a meet Judge of Controversies If they have certain infallible means and so cannot err in their interpretations of Scriptures then they are able with infallibility to hear examine and determine all Controversies of Faith and so they may be and are Judges of Controversies although they use the Scripture as a Rule And thus against their own doctrin they constitute another Judge of Controversies besides Scripture alone 26. Lastly I ask D. Potter Whether â—his Assertion Scripture alone is Judge of all Controversies in Faith be a fundamental Point of Faith or no He must be well advised before he say that it is a Fundamental Point For he will have against him as many Protestants as teach that by Scripture alone it
Church which we pretend may deviate from the Ancient but such a Tradition which involves an â—â—ndence of Fact and from hand to hand from age to age bringing us up to the times and persons of the Apostles and our Saviour himself cometh to be confirmed by all those Miracles and other Arguments whereby they convinced their doctrine to be true Thus you Now prove the Canon of Scripture which you receive by such Tradition and we will allow it Prove your whole doctrine or the infallibility of your Church by such a Tradition and we will yield to you in all things Take the alleaged places of S. Athanasius and S. Austin in this sense which is your own and they will not press us any thing at all We will say with Athanasius That only four Gospels are to be received because the Canons of the Holy and Catholique Church understand of all Ages since the perfection of the Canon have so determined 54. We will subscribe to S. Austin and say That we also would not believe the Gospel unless the Authority of the Catholique Church did move us meaning by the Church the Church of all Ages and that succession of Christians which takes in Christ himself and his Apostels Neither would Zwinglius have needed to cry out upon this saying had he conceived as you now do that by the Catholique Church the Church of all Ages since Christ was to be understood As for the Councel of Carthage it may speak not of such Books only as were certainly Canonical and for the regulating of Faith but also of those which were only profitable and lawful to be read in the Church Which in England is a very slender Argument that the book is Canonical where every body knows that Apocryphal books are read as well as Canonical But howsoever if you understand by Fathers not only their immediate Fathers and Predecessors in the Gospel but the succession of them from the Apostles they are right in the Thesis that whatsoever is received from these Fathers as Canonical is to be so esteemed Though in the application of it to this or that particular book they may haply erre and think that book received as Canoniel 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 remain uncorrupted Not so certain I grant as of that which we can demonstrate But certain enough morally certain as certain as the nature of the thing will bear So certain we may be and God requires no more We may be as certain as S. Austin was who in his second book of Baptism against the Donatists c. 3. plainly implies the Scripture might possibly be corrupted He means sure in matters of little moment such as concern not the Covenant between God and Man But thus he saith The same S. Austin in his 48. Epist cleerly intimates (a) Neque enim sic poturt integrit as atque notitia literarum quamlibet illust is Episcopi castodiri quemadmodum Scritura Canonica tet linguarum literis ordine successione celebrationis Ecclesiasticae custoditur contra quam non desuerunt tamâ—n qui sub nominibus Aposiolorum multa consiagerent Frustra quidem quia illa sic commendata sic celebrata sic nota est Verum quid possit adversus literas non Canonica authoritate sundatas etiam hinc demonstrabit impiae conatus audaciae quòd adversus cos quae tanta notitiae mole firmatae sunt sese erigere non praetermisit Aug. ep 48. ad Vincent cont Donat. Rogat That in his judgement the only preservative of the Scriptures integrity was the translating it into so many Languages and the general and perpetual use and reading of it in the Church for want whereof the works of particular Doctors were more exposed to danger in this kind but the Canonical Scripture being by this means guarded with universal care and diligence was not obnoxious to such attempts And this assurance of the Scriptures incorruption is common to us with him we therefore are as certain hereof as S. Austin was and 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 (b) In hac germani textus peâ—vestigatione satis perspicue inter omnes constat nullum argumenum esse certius ac sirmius quà m antiquorum probatorum codicum Latinorum fidem c. sie Sâ—xtus in Praef. That in the pervestigation of the true and genuine Text it was perspicuously manifest to all men that there was no Argument more firm and certain to be relied upon than the Faith of Ancient Books Now this ground we have 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 have to say in this matter For I will add moreover that we are as certain in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted as any man in your Church was until Clement the eighth set forth your own approved Edition of your Vulgar Translation For you do not nor cannot without extream impudence deny that until then there was great variety of Copes 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 than one sort of them could not possibly be true in all things Neither were it less impudence to pretend that any man in your Church could until Clement's time have any certainty what that one true Copie and Reading was if there were one perfectly true Some indeed that had got Sixtus his Bible might after the Edition of that very likely think themselves cock-sure of a perfect true uncorrupted Translation without being beholding to Clement but how foully 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 remains uncorrupted is it necessary to have it or is it not If it be not I hope we may do well enough without it If it be necessary What became of your Church for 1500 years together All which time you must confess 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 grown to a higher degree of Presumption in this Point yet are you as far as ever from any true real and rational assurance of the absolute purity of your Authentique Translation which I suppose my self to have proved unanswerably in divers places 58. In the sixteenth Division It is objected to
That The Jewish Church retained Infallibility in her self and therefore it is unjustly and unworthily done of him to deprive the Church of Christ of it That the Jews had sometimes an infallible miraculous direction from God in some cases of moment he doth affirm and had good warrant but that the Synagogue was absolutely infallible he no where affirms and therefore it is unjustly and 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 condemned and excommunicated them that so professed and caused him to be crucified for saying so I leave it to Christians to judge But then suppose God had been so pleased to do as he did not to appoint the Synagogue an Infallible Guide Could you by your rules of Logick constrain him to appoint such an one to Christians also or say unto him that in wisdom he could not do otherwise Vain man that will be thus alwaystying God to your imaginations It is well for us that he leaves us not without directions to him but if he will do this sometime by living Guides sometime by written Rules What is that to you May not he do what he will with his own 142. And whereas you say for the further enforcing of this Argument that there is greater reason to think the Church should be infallible than the Synagogue because to the Synaggoue all Laws and Ceremonies c. were more particularly and minutely delivered than 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 and Ceremonies and orders for government we grant it and you know we do so Our Saviour only hath left a general injunction by S. Paul Let all things be done Decently and in Order But what Order is fittest i. e. what Time what Place what Manner c. is fittest that he hath left to the discretion of the Governours of the Church But if you mean that he hath only concerning matters of Faith the subject in Questistion prescribed in general that we are to hear the Church and left it to the Church to determine what particulars we are to believe The Church being nothing else but an aggregation of Believers this in effect is to say He hath left it to all Believers to determine what Particulars they are to believe Besides it is so apparently false that I wonder you could content your self or think we should be contented with a bare saying without any shew or pretence of proof 143. As for D. Potter's Objection against this Argument That as well you might infer that Christians must have all one King because the Jews had so For ought I can perceive notwithstanding any thing answered by you it may stand still in force though the truth is it is urged by him not against the Infallibility but the Monarchy of the Church For whereas you say The disparity is very clear He that should urge this Argument for one Monarch over the whole world would say that this is to deny the Conclusion and reply unto you that there is disparity as matters are now ordered but that there should not be so For that there was no more reason to believe that the Ecclesiastical Government of the Jews was a Pattern for the Ecclesiastical Government of Christians than the Civil of the Jews for the Civil of the Christians He would tell you that the Church of Christ and all Christian Commonwealths and Kingdoms are one and the same thing and therefore he sees no reason why the Synagogue should be a Type and Figure of the Church and not of the Commonwealth He would tell you that as the Church succeeded the Jewish Synagogue so Christian Princes should succeed to Jewish Magistrates That is the Temporal Governours of the Church should be Christians He would tell you that as the Church is compared to a House a Kingdom an Army a Body so all distinct Kingdoms might and should be one Army one Family c. and that it is not so is the thing he complains of And therefore you ought not to think it enough to say It is not so but you should shew why it should not be so and why this Argument will not follow The Jews had one King therefore all Christians ought to have as well as this The Jews had one High-Priest over them all therefore all Christians also ought to have He might tell you moreover that the Church may have one Master one General one Head one King and yet he not be the Pope but Christ He might tell you that you beg the Question in saying without proof that it is necessary to salvation that all whether Christians or Churches have recourse to one Church if you mean by one Church one particular Church which is to govern and direct all others and that unless you mean so you say nothing to the purpose And besides he might tell you and that very truly that it may seem altogether as available for the Temporal good of Christians to be under one Temporal Prince or Commonwealth as for their salvation to be subordinate to one Visible Head I say as necessary both for the prevention of the effusion of the Blood of Christians by Christians and for the defence of Christendom from the hostile invasions of Turks and Pagans And from all this he might inferr that though now by the fault of men there were in several Kingdoms several Laws Governments and Powers yet that it were much more expedient that there were but one Nay not only expedient but necessary if once your ground be setled for a general Rule that what kind of government the Jews had that the Christians must have And if you limit the generality of this Proposition and frame the Argument thus What kind of Ecclesiastical government the Jews had that the Christians must have But They were governed by one High-Priest Therefore These must be so He will say that the first Proposition of this Syllogism is altogether as doubtful as the Conclusion and therefore neither fit nor sufficient to prove it until it self be proved And then besides that there is as great reason to believe this That what kind of Civil government the Jews had that the Christians must have And so D. Potter's Objection remains still unanswered That there is as much reason to conclude a necessity of one King over all Christian Kingdoms from the Jews having one King as one Bishop over all Churches from their being under one High-Priest 144. Ad. § 24. Nether is this discourse confirmed by Irenaeus at all Whether by this discourse you mean that immediatly foregoing of the Analogy between the Church and the Synagogue to which this speech
Supremacy to be an essential Point of Faith O freedom of the new Gospel Hold with Catholiques the Pope or with Protestants the King or with Puritans neither Pope nor King to be Head of the Church all is one you may be saved Some as Castalio (p) Vid Gul. Reginald Calv. Turcis l. 2. c. 6. and the whole Sect of the Academical Protestants hold that Doctrins about the Supper Baptism 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 partial their Assertions be Perkins teacheth that the Real presence of our Saviour's Body in the Sacrament as it is believed by Catholiques is a Fundamental Error and yet affirmeth the Consubstantiation of Lutherans not to be such notwithstanding that divers chief Lutherans to their Consubstantiation joyn the prodigious Heresie of Ubiquitation D. Usher in his Sermon of the Unity of the Catholique Faith grants Salvation to the Aethiopians who yet with Christian Baptism joyn Circumcision D. Potter (q) Pag. 113 114. Morton in his Treatise of the Kingdom of Israel p. 94. cites the Doctrin of some whom he termeth men of great learning and judgment that all who profess to love and honour JESUS CHRIST are in the visible Christian Church and by Catholiques to be reputed Brethren One of these men of great learning and judgment is Thomas Morton by D. Potter cited in his Margent whose love and honour to Jesus Christ you may perceive by this saying that the Churches of Arians who denied our Saviour Christ to be God are to be accounted the Church of God because they do hold the foundation of the Gospel which is Faith in Jesus Christ the Son 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 (r) Pag. 121. among the arguments to prove Hookers and Morton's opinion brings this The people of the ten Tribes after their defection notwithstanding their gross corruption and 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 Church For a learned man saith D. Potter (s) Pag. 122. in behalf of Hooker's and Morton's opinion was anciently made a Bishop of the Catholique Church though he did professedly doubt of the last Resurrection of our bodies Dear Saviour What times do 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 Baptism if we may use Circumcision and with the worship of God joyn Idolatry wherein do we differ from Turks and Jews or rather are we not worse than either of them If they who deny our Saviour's Divinity might be accounted the Church of God How will they deny that savour to those ancient Heretiques who denied our Saviour's true humanity and so the total denial of Christ will not exclude one from being a member of the true Church S. Hilary (t) Comment in Mat. cap. 16. maketh it of equal necessity for Salvation that we believe our Saviour to be true God and true Man saying This manner of Confession we aâ—e to hold that we remember him to be the Son of God and the Son of Man because the one without the other can give no hope of Salvation And yet D. Potter saith of the aforesaid doctrin of Hooker and Morton The (u) Pag. 123. Reader may be pleased to approve or reject it as he shall find cause And in another place (w) Pag. 253. he sheweth so much good liking of this Doctrin that he explicateth and proveth the Churches perpetual Visibility by it And in the second Edition of his Book he is careful to declare and illustrate it more at large than he had done before howsoever this sufficiently sheweth that they have no certainty what Points be Fundamental As for the Arians in particular the Author whom D. Potter cites for a moderate Catholique but is indeed a plain Heretique or rather Atheist Lucian-like jesting at all Religion (x) A moderate examination c. cap. 1. panlò post initium placeth Arianism among Fundamental Errors Buâ— 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 prove that even the denial of the Blessed Trinity may stand with Salvation Divers Protestants have taught that the Roman Church erreth in Fundamental Points But D. Potter and others teach the contrary which could not happen if they could agree what be Fundamental Points You brand the Donatists with the note of an Error in the matter (y) Pag. 126. and the nature of it properly heretical because they taught that the Church remained only with them in the part of Donatus And yet many Protestants are so far from holding that Doctrin to be a Fundamental Error that themselves go further and say that for divers ages before Luther there was no true Visible Church at all It is then too too apparent that you have no agreement in specifying what be Fundamental Points neither have you any means to determine what they be for if you have any such means Why do you not agree You tell us The Creed contains all Points Fundamental which although it were true yet you see it serves not to bring you to a particular knowledge and agreement in such Points And no wonder For besides what I have said already in the beginning of this Chapter and am to deliver more at large in the next after so much labour and paper spent to pâ—ove that the Creed contains all Fundamental Points you conclude It remains (a) Pag. 241. very probable that the Creed is the perfect Summary of those Fundamental truths whereof consists the Unity 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 and the sole Judge of your Faith must be Scripture Scripture doth indeed deliver divine Truths but seldom doth qualifie them or declare whether they be or be nor absolutely necessary to Salvation You fall (b) Pag. 215. heavy upon Charity Mistaken because he demands a particular Catalogue of Fundamental Points which yet you are obliged in conscience to do if you be able For without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no be have Faith sufficient to Salvation And therefore take it not in all part if we again and again demand such a Catalogue And that you may see we proceed fairly I will perform on our behalf what we request of you and do here deliver a Catalogue wherein
Saviour speaketh clearly The Gates of Hell (e) Mat. 16. shall not prevail against her And I will ask my (f) Joan. 14. Father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you for ever The Spirit of Truth And But when he the Spirit of (g) Joan. 16. Truth cometh he shall teach you all Truth The Apostle saith that the Church is the Pillar and ground of (h) 1 Tim. c. 3. Truth And He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and othersome Evangelists and othersome Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministry unto the edifying of the Body of Christ until we meet all into the unity of Faith and knowledge of the Son of God into a perfect man into the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ that now we be not children wavering and carried about with every wind of Doctrin in the wickedness of men in craftiness to the circumvention (i) Ephes 4. of Error All which words seem clearly enough to prove that the Church is universally infallible without which unity of Faith could not be conserved against every wind of Doctrin And yet D Potter (k) Pag. 151 153. limits these promises and priviledges to Fundamental Points in which he grants the Church cannot err I urge the words of Scripture which are universal and do not mention any such restraint I alledge that most reasonable and Received Rule that Scripture is to be understood literally as it soundeth unless some manifest absurdity force us to the contrary But all will not serve to accord our different interpretation In the mean time divers of D. Potter's 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 have as much right as these to interpose their opinion and interpretation Behold we are three at debate about the selfesame words of Scripture We confer divers places and Texts We consult the Originals We examine Translations We endeavour to pray heartily We profess to speak sincerely To seek nothing but Truth and Salvation of our own souls and that of our Neighbours and finally we use all those means which by Protestants themselves are prescribed for finding out the true meaning of Scripture Nevertheless we neither do or have any possible means to agree as long as we are left to our selves and when we should chance to be agreed the doubt would still remain whether the thing it self be a Fundamental Point or no And yet it were great impiety to imagine that God the lover of Souls hath left no certain infallible means 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 hear Gods Visible Church with submissive acknowledgment of her Power and Infallibility in whatsoever the proposeth as a revealed Truth according to that divine advice of St. Augustine in these words If at length (l) De util cred cap. 8. thou seem to be sufficiently tossed and hast a desire to put an end to thy pains follow the way of the Catholique Discipline which from Christ himself by the Apostles hath come down even to us and from us shall descend to all posterity And though I conceive that the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental hath now been sufficiently confuted yet that no shadow of difficulty may remain I will particularly refel a common saying of Protestants that it is sufficient for Salvation to believe the Apostles Creed which they hold to be a Summary of all Fundamental Points of Faith The ANSWER to the THIRD CHAPTER Wherein it is maintained That the distinction of Points Fundamental and not Fundamental is in this present Controversie good and pertinent And that the Catholique Church may err in the latter kind of the said Points 1 THis Distinction is imployed by Protestants to many purposes and therefore if it be pertinent and good as they understand and apply it the whole edifice built thereon must be either firme and stable or if it be not it cannot be for any default in this Distinction 2. If you object to them discords in matter of Faith without any means of agreement They will answer you that they want not good and solid means of agreement in matters necessary to Salvation viz. Their beliefe of all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture which who so believes must of necessity believe all things necessary to Salvation and their mutual suffering one another to abound in their several sense in matters not plainly and undoubtedly there delivered And for their agreement in all Controversies of Religion either they have means to agree about them or not If you say they have why did you before deny it If they have not means why do you find fault with them for not agreeing 3. You will say that their fault is that by remaining Protestants they exclude themselves from the means of agreement which you have and which by submission to your Church they might have also But if you have means of agreement the more shame for you that you stil disagree For who I pray is more inexcusably guilty for the omission of any duty they that either have no means to do it or else know of none they have which puts them in the same case if as they had none or they which professe to have an easie and expedite means to do it and yet still leave it undone If you had been blind saith our Saviour to the Pharisees you had had no sin but now you say you see therefore your sin remaineth 4. If you say you do agree in matters of Faith I say this is ridiculous for you define matters of Faith to be those wherein you agree So that to say you agree in matters of Faith is to say you agree in those things wherein you do agree And do not Protestants do so likewise Do not they agree in those things wherein they do agree 5. But you are all agreed that only those things wherein you do agree are matters of Faith And Protestants if they were wise would do so too Sure I am they have reason enough to do so seeing all of them agree with explicite Faith in all those things which are plainly and undoubtedly delivered in Scripture that is in all which God hath plainly revealed and with an implicite Faith in that sense of the whole Scripture which God intended whatsoever was Secondly That which you pretend is false for else why do some of you hold it against faith to take or allow the Oath of
of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither have named those Protestants who held the Church to have 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 splendor and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a Fundamental Error to hold that the Church militant may possibly be driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65. But to accuse the Church of any Error in Faith is to say she lost all Faith For this is the Doctrin of Catholique Divines that one Errour in Faith destroyes Faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Error in Faith is not to say she lost all Faith For this is not the Doctrin of all Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may have 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 says not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practice of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he sayes even the Catholique may err and every man may lawfully depart from Error He only says You may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you infer a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Just as if you should argue thus You may not leave your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he sayes of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same he extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why do you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgment can fall into any Error and call this a Demonstration too For as he sayes p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself So p. 76. he tels you That whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body forsakes the whole So that what he sayes of the one he sayes of the other and tels you that neither Universal nor particular Church so long as they continue so may be forsaken he means Absolutely no more than Christ himself 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 himself 67. But then he tels you plainly in the same place That it may be lawful and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrins and Practices And this he would have 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 Catholike Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confess his Doctrin to be that even the Catholique Church may erre in points not Fundamental which you do not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himself 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 than Christ himself but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more than Christ himself And thus we see sometimes A mountain may travel and the production may be a mouse 68. Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himself 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 give it the right name is an obscure and intricate Nothing And to make it appear 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 Unless I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract you imputation laid upon D. Potter or do that which you condemn in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errors with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not to hold but condemn 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 clearly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall be ever the infallible guide of Faith You will confess 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 nearer for him to an end of contentions Nay rather would not the dissentions about the Person who it is increase contentions rather than end them Just so it would have been if God had appointed a Church to be Judge of Controversies and had not told us which was that Church Seeing therefore God doth 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 Obj. 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 Answ Yes the Primitive and
done nothing your bridge is too short to bring you to the bank where you would be unless you can shew that by Truth here is certainly meant not only all necessary to salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. For that the true Church always shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessary Truth you know we grant and must grant for it is of the essence of the Church to be so and any company of men were no more a Church without it than any thing can be a man and not be reasonable But as a man may be still a man though he want a hand or an eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defective in some profitable truth And as a man may be a man that hath some biles and botches on his body so the Church may be the Church though it have many corruptions both in doctrine and practice 79. And thus you see we are at liberty from the former places having shewed that the sense of them either must or may be such as will do your Cause no service But the last you suppose will be a Gordian knot and tie us fast enough The words are He gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. to the consummation of Saints to the work of the Ministery c. Until we all meet into the Unity of faith c. That we be not hereafter Children wavering and carryed up and down with every wind of Doctrin Out of which words this is the only Argument which you collect or I can collect for you There is no means to conserve Unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrin unless it be a Church universally infallible But it is impious to say There is no means to conserve Unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrin Therefore there must be a Church Universally Infallible Whereunto I answer that your Major is so far from being confirmed that it is plainly confuted by the place alleadged For that tels us of another means for this purpose to wit the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his Ascension and that their consummating the Saints doing the work of the Ministery and edifying the body of Christ was the means to bring those which are there spoken of be they who they will to the Unity of Faith and to perfection in Christ that they might not be wavering and carryed about with every wind of false Doctrin Now the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors are not the present Church therefore the Church is not the only means for this end nor that which is here spoken of 80. Peradventure by he gave you conceive is to be understood he promised that he would give unto the worlds end But what reason have you for this conceit Can you shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath this signification in other places and that it must have it in this place Or will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity that God hath not performed his promise Unless you will say which for shame I think you will not that you have now and in all Ages since Christ have had Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists for as for Pastors and Doctors alone they will not serve the turn For if God promised to give all these then you must say He hath given all or else that he hath broke his promise Neither may you pretend that the Pastors and Doctors were the same with the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and therefore having Pastors and Doctors you have all For it is apparent that by these names are denoted several Orders of men clearly distinguished and diversified by the Original Text but much more plainly by your own Translations for so you read it some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors and yet more plainly in the parallel place 1 Cor. 12. to which we are referred by your Vulgar Translation God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you Object But how can they which died in the first Age keep us in Unity and guard us from Error that live now perhaps in the last This seems to be all one as if a man should say that Alexander or Julius Caesar should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spain 's Army Answ I hope you will grant that Hippocrates and Galen and Euclid and Aristotle and Salust and Caesar and Livie were dead many Ages since and yet that we are now preserved from error by them in a great part of Physick of Geometry of Logick of the Roman Story But what if these men had writ by Divine Inspiration and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they professed and writ them plainly and perspicuously You would then have granted I believe that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error and from dissention in these matters And why then should it be incongruous to say that the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his Ascension by their writings which some of them writ but all approved are even now sufficient means to conserve us in Unity of Faith and guard us from error Especially seeing these writings are by the confession of all parts true and divine and as we pretend and are ready to prove contain a plain and perfect Rule of Faith and as the * Perron Chiefest of you acknowledge contain immediately all the Principal and fundamental Points of Christianity referring us to the Church and Tradition only for some minute particularities But tell me I pray the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Councel of Trent and the Pope that confirmed them are they means to conserve you in Unity and keep you from Error or are they not Peradventure you will say Their Decrees are but not their Persons but you will not deny I hope that you owe your Unity and freedome from Error to the Persons that made these Decrees neither will they deny that the writings which they have left behind them are sufficient for this purpose And why may not then the Apostles writings be as fit for such a purpose as the Decrees of your Doctors Surely their intent in writing was to conserve us in Unity of Faith and to keep us from errour and we are sure God spake in them but your Doctors from whence they are we are not so certain Was the Holy Ghost then unwilling or unable to direct them so that their writings should be fit and sufficient to attain that end they aimed at in writing For if he were both able and willing to do so then certainly he did do so And then their writings may be very sufficient means if we would use them as we should do to preserve us in Unity in all necessary
dead in any sense And yet D. Potter doth not deny but that Aerius was esteemed an Heretique for denying (r) Pag. 35. all sort of Commemoration for the dead Nothing of the Churches Visibility or Invisibility Fallibility or Infallibility nor of other Points controverted betwixt Protestants themselves and between Protestants and Catholiques which to D. Potter seem so hainous corruptions that they cannot without damnation joyn with us in profession thereof There is no mention of the Cessation of the Old Law which yet is a very main Point of Faith And many other might be also added 15. But what need we labour to specifie particulars There are as many important Points of Faith not expressed in the Creed as since the worlds beginning now and for all future times there have been are and may be innumerable gross damnable Heresies whose contrary truths are not contained in the Creed For every Fundamental Error must have a contrary Fundamental Truth because of two contradictory Propositions in the same degree if the one is false the other must be true As for example if it be a damnable error to deny the blessed Trinity or the Godhead of our Saviour the belief of them must be a Truth necessary to Salvation or rather if we will speak properly the Error is damnable because the opposite Truth is necessary as death is frightful because life is sweet and according to Philosophy the Privation is measured by the Forme to which it is repugnant If therefore the Creed contain in particular all fundamental Points of Faith it must explicitely or by cleer consequence comprehend all Truths opposite to innumerable Heresies of all Ages past present and to come which no man in his wits will affirm it to do 16 And here I cannot omit to signifie how you (Å¿) Pag. 255. applaud the saying of D. Usher That in those Propositions which without all controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world so much Truth is contained as being joyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a man to everlasting Salvation neither have we cause to doubt but that as many as walk according to this Rule neither overthrowing that which they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies thereupon nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a lewd and wicked conversation peace shall be upon them and upon the Israel of God Now D. Potter knows that the Mystery of the B. Trinity is not universally received in the whole Christian world as appears by very many Heretiques in Polony Hungary and Transilvania and therefore according to this Rule of D. Usher approved by D. Potter the denyal of the B. Trinity shall not exclude Salvation 17. Let me note by the way that you might easily have espied a foul contradiction in the said words of D. Usher by you recited and so much applauded For he supposeth that a man agrees with other Churches in belief which joyned with holy Obedience may bring him to everlasting Salvation and yet that he may superinduce damnable heresies For how can he superinduce damnable heresies who is supposed to believe all Truths necessary to Salvation Can there be any damnable heresie unless it contradict some necessary Truth which cannot happen in one who is supposed to believe all necessary Truths Besides if one believing all Fundamental Articles in the Creed may superinduce damnable haeresies it followeth that the Fundamental Truths contrary to those damnable heresies are not contained in the Creed 18. According to this Model of D. Potters foundation consisting in the agreement of scarceone Point of Faith what a strange Church would he make of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief who yet for the rest should be holding conceits plainly contradictory so patching up a Religion of men who agree only in the Article That Christ is our Saviour but for the rest are like to the parts of a Chimaera having the head of a man the neck of horse the shoulder of an Oxe the foot of a Lion c. I wrong them not herein For in good Philosophie there is greater repugnancy between assent and dissent affirmation and negation est est non non especially when all these contradictories pretend to relie upon one and the self same Motive the infallible Truth of Almighty God than between the integral parts as head neck c. of a man horse lion c. And thus Protestants are far more bold to disagree even in matters of Faith than Catholique Divines in questions meerly Philosophical or not determined by the Church And while thus they stand only upon fundamental Articles they do by their own confession destroy the Church which is the house of God For the foundation alone of a house is not a house nor can they in such an imaginary Church any more expect Salvation than the foundation alone of a house is fit to afford a man habitation 19. Moreover it is most evident that Protestants by this Chaos rather than Church do give unavoidable occasion of desperation to poor souls Let some one who is desirous to save his soul repair to D. Potter who maintains these grounds to know upon whom he may relie in a matter of so great consequence I suppose the Doctors answer will be Upon the truely Catholique Church She cannot erre damnably What understand you by the Catholique Church cannot general Councels which are the Church representative err Yes they may weakly or (t) Pag. 167. wilfully misapply or misunderstand or neglect Scripture and so err damnably To whom then shall I go for my particular instruction I cannot conferr with the united body of the whole Church about my particular difficulties as your self affirmes that the Catholique Church cannot be told (u) Pag. 27. of private injuries Must I then consult with every particular person of the Catholique Church So it seems by what you write in these woâ—ds The whole (w) Pag. 150. Militant Church that is all the members of it cannot possibly err either in the whole Faith or any necessary Article of it You say M. Doctor I cannot for my instruction accquaint the universal Church with my particular scruples You say the prelates of God's Church meeting in a lawful general Council may err damnably It remains then that for my necessary instruction I must repair to every particular member of the universal Church spred over the face of the earth and yet you teach that the Promises (x) Pag. 151. 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 with which as I said it is impossible for me to conferr Alas O most uncomfortable ghostly Father you drive me to desperation How shall I confer with every Christian soul man and woman by sea and by land close prisoner or at liberty c. Yet upon supposal of this miraculous Pilgrimage for Faith before I have the faith of
being prepared in mind to come out of all Error in Faith or material Heresie which certainly you will not deny or if you do you pull down the only pillar of your Church and Religion and deny 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 uneffectual for these good purposes that you your self tell us of innumerable gross 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 belief 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 mischiefs that it is more likely to ensnare them into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary Points of Faith which is apt as experience shews to mis-guide men into this as you conceive it pernitious error That believing the Creed they believe all necessary Points of Faith whereas indeed according to you they do not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better than 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 doctrin be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrin be true would without controversie be better than the latter 80. But say you by this kind of arguing one might infer quite contrary If the Apostles Creed contain all Points necessary to Salvation What need have we 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's 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 less why the whole Creed's containing all things necessary should make the belief 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 doth it follow so well as D. Potter's Argument follows That if the Apostles Creed contains all things necessary that all other Creeds and Catechisms 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 than an apple is like an oister 81. But this consequence after you have sufficiently slighted and disgraced it at length you promise us news 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 than now they have done This is D. Potter's inference out of your Doctrin and truly if you should grant this this were news indeed Yes say you I will grant it but only thus far that Christ hath referred us only to his Church Yea but this is clean another thing and no news 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 proffer me a courtesie and pretend that he would oblige himself by a note under his hand to give me twenty pound and instead of it write that I owe him forty and desire me to subsctibe to it and be thankful Of such favours as these it is very safe to be liberal 82. You tell us afterward but how it comes in I know not that it were a childish argument The Creed contains not all things necessary Ergo It is not profitable Or The Church alone is sufficient to teach us by some convenient means Ergo She must teach us without means These indeed are childish arguments but for ought I see you alone are the father of them for in D. Potter's book I can neither meet with them nor any like them He indeed tels you that if by an impossible supposition your Doctrin were true another and a far 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 which we have unprofitable because he says another that might be conceived upon this false supposition would be more profitable or that he lays a necessity upon the Church of teaching without means or of not teaching this very Creed which now is taught these things are so subtil 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 Catechisms or Councels or any other means which she should make choice of for being Infallible she could not chuse amiss 83. Whereas therefore you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholique Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows that the Apostles if your doctrin be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we have if in stead thereof they had commanded in plain terms that for mens perpetual 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 have taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion For then the Church not having learnt it of them could not have taught it us This therefore I do not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they have written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrin which they did preach and done all other things as they have done besides the composing their Symbol I say if your doctrin were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the Church of Christ if they had never composed their Symbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary Points of simple Belief and no distinctive mark as a Symbol should
His Understanding is united to God by Faith his Will by Charity The former relies upon his infallible Truth The latter carrieth us to his infinite Goodness Faith hath a deadly opposite Heresie Contrary to the Union or Unity 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 Separation or division of affections and will from our Neighbour Our Neighbour may be considered either as one private person 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 principal reference and Union of one man with another because the chiefest Unity is that of the Whole to which the particular Unity of Parts is subordinate This Unity or Oneness if so I may call it is effected by Charity uniting all the members of the Church in one Mystical Body contrary to which is Schism from the Greek word signifying Scissure or Division Wherefore upon the whole matter we find that Schism as the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas defines it is A voluntary separation (c) 2.2 q. 39. art in corp ad 3. from the Unity of that Charity whereby all the members of the Church are united From hence he deduceth that Schism is a special and particular vice distinct from Heresie because they are opposite to two different Vertues Heresie to Faith Schism to Charity To which purpose he fitly alledgeth S. Hierom upon these words Tit. 3. A man that is an Heretique after the first and second admonition avoid saying I conceive that there is this difference betwixt Schism and Heresie that Heresie involves some perverse assertion Schism for Episcopal dissention doth separate men from the Church The same Doctrine is delivered by S. Austin in these words Heretiques (d) Lib. de Fid. Symbol cap. 10. and Schismatiques call their Congregations Churches but Heretiques corrupt the Faith by believing of God false things but Schismatiques by wicked divisions break from fraternal 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 (e) Qu. Evang ex Mat. q. 11. how Schismatiques be distinguished from Heretiques and this difference is found that not a diverse Faith but the divided society of Communion doth make Schismatiques It is then evident that Schism is different from Heresie Nevertheless saith S. Thomas (f) Ubi supra 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 Schism speedily degenerates to Heresie as S. Hierom after the rehearsed words teacheth saying Though Schism in the beginning may in some sort be understood different from Heresie yet there is no Schism which doth not faign some Heresie to it self that so it may seem to have departed from the Church upon good reason Nevertheless when Schism proceeds originally from Heresie Heresie 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 Schism though in process of time they fell into some Heresie and by that means are indeed both Schismatiques and Heretiques 4. The reason why both Heresie and Schism are repugnant to the being of a good Catholique is Because the Catholique or Universal Church signifies One Congregation or Company of faithful people and therefore implies not only Faith to make them Faithful believers but also Communion or common Union to make them One in Charity which excludes Separation and Division and therefore in the Apostles Creed Communion of Saints is immediatly joyned to the Catholique Church 5. From this definition of Schism may be inferred that the guilt thereof is contracted not only by division from the Universal Church but also by a Separation from a particular Church or Diocess which agrees with the Universal In this manner Meletius was a Schismatique but not an Heretique because as we read in S. Epiphanius (h) Haeres 68. 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 himself a particular Congregation against S. Peter Archbishop of Alexandria his lawful Superiour and by that means 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 ancient Churches of those who 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 not a true Church And that Schism may be committed by division from a particular Church we read in Optatus Milevitanus (i) Lib. 1. conâ— Parmen these remarkable words which do well declare who be Schismatiques brought by him to prove that not Caecilianus but Parmenianus was a Schismatique For Caecilianus went not out from Majorinus thy Grand Father he means his next predecessour but one in the Bishoprick but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chair of Peter or of Cyprian who was but a particular Bishop but Majorinus in whose Chair thou fittest which had no beginning before Majorinus himself Seeing it is manifestly known that these things were so done it evidently appearch that you are heirs both of Traditors that is of those who delivered up the holy Bible to be burned and of Schismatiques And it seemeth that this kind of Schism must principally be admitted by Protestants who acknowledge no one visible Head of the whole Church but hold that every particular Diocess Church or Countrey is governed by it self independently of any one Person or General Councel to which all Christians have obligation to submit their judgments and wills 6. As for the grievousness or quantity of Schism which was the second Point proposed S. Thomas teacheth 2. Point The grievousness of Schism that amongst sins against our Neighbour Schism (l) Supra art 2. ad 3. is the most grievous because it is against the spiritual good of the multitude or Community And therefore as in a Kingdom or Commonwealth there is as great difference between the crime of rebellion or sedition and debates
among private men as there is inequality betwixt one man and a whole kingdom so in the Church Schism is as much more grievous than Sedition in a Kingdom as the spiritual good of souls surpasseth the civil and political weal. And S. Thomas adds further and they lose the spiritual Power of Jurisdiction and if they go about to absolve from sin or to excommunicate their actions are invalid which he proves out of the Canon Novitianus Causa 7 quaest 1. which saith He that keepeth neither the Unity of spirit nor the peace of agreement and separates himself from the bond of the Church and the Colledge of Priests can neither have the Power nor dignity of a Bishop the Power also of Order for example to consecrate the Eucharist to ordain Priests c. they cannot lawfully exercise 7. In the judgment of the holy Fathers Schism is a most grievous offence S. Chrysostom (m) Hom. 11. in ep ad Eph. compares these Schismatical dividers of Christ's mystical body to those who sacrilegiously pierced his natural 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 less than they who tore his natural body For that was done to the gain of the whole world although not with that intention but this hath no profit at all but there ariseth from it most great harm These things are spoken not only to those who bear office but also to those who are governed by them Behold how neither a moral good life which conceit deceiveth many nor authority of Magistrates nor any necessity of Obeying Superiours can excuse Schism from being a most hainous offence Optatus Milevitanus (o) Lib. cont Parmen calls Schism Ingens flagitium a huge crime And speaking to the Donatists saith that Schism is evil in the highest degree even you are not able to deny No less pathetical is S. Augustine upon this subject He reckons Schismatiques amongst Pagans Heretiques and Jews saying Religion is to be sought neither in the confusion of Pagans nor (p) Lib. de vera Relig. cap. 6. in the filth of Heretiques nor in the languishing of Schismatiques nor in the Age of the Jews but amongst those alone who are called Christian Catholiques or Orthodox that is lovers of Unity in the whole body and followers of truth Nay he esteems them worse than Infidels and Idolaters saying Those whom the Donatists (q) Cont. Donatist l. 1. cap. 8. heal from the wound of Infidelity and Idolatry they hurt more grievously with the wound of Schism Let here those men who are pleased untruly to call us Idolaters reflect upon themselves and consider that this holy Father judgeth Schismatiques as they are to be worse than Idolaters which they absurdly call us And this he proveth by the example of Core Dathan and Abiram and other rebellious Schismatiques of the old Testament who were conveyed alive down into Hell and punished more openly than Idolaters No doubt saith this holy Father but (r) Ibid. l. 2. c. 6. that was committed most wickedly which was punished most severely In another place he yoketh Schism with Heresie saying upon the Eighth Beatitude Many (s) De serm Dom. in monte cap. 5. Heretiques under the name of Christians deceiving mens souls do 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 Justice 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 (t) Epist 204. the Church and divided from the heap of Unity and the bond of Charity thou shouldst be Punished with eternal death though thou shouldest be burned alive for the name of Christ And in another place he hath these words If he hear not the Church let him be to (u) Cont. advers Leg. Prophet l. 2. cap. 17. thee as an Heathen or Publican which is more grievous than if he were smitten with the sword consumed with flames or cast to wilde beasts And elsewhere Out of the Catholique Church saith he one (w) De gest cum Emerit may have Faith Sacraments Orders and in sum all things except Salvation With S. Augustine his Countryman and second self in sympathy of spirit S. Fulgentius agreeth saying Believe this (x) De fide ad Pet. stedfastly without doubting that every Heretique or Schismatique baptized in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost if before the end of his life he be not reconciled to the Catholique Church what Alms soever he give yea though he should shed his blood for the name of Christ he cannot obtain Salvation Mark again how no moral honesty of life no good deeds no Martyrdom can without repentance avail any Schismatique for Salvation Let us also add that D. Potter saith Schism is no less (y) Pag. 42. damnable than Heresie 8. But O you Holy Learned zealous Fathers and Doctors of Gods Church out of these premises of the grievousness of Schism 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 (z) Cont. Parm. l. 2. cap. 62. no just necessity to divide Unity S. Irenaeus concludeth They cannot (a) Cont. haeres l 4. cap. 62. make any so important reformation as the evil of the Schism is pernitious S. Denis of Alexandria saith Certainly (b) Apud Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. all things should rather be endured than to consent to the division of the Church of God those Martyrs being no less glorious that expose themselves to hinder the dismembring of the Church than those that suffer rather than 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 thus much of the second Point 3. Point Perpetual Visibility of the Church 9 We have just and necessary occasion eternally to bless Almighty God who hath vouchsafed to make us members of the Catholique Roman Church from which while men fall they precipitate themselves into so vast absurdities or rather sacrilegious blasphemies as is implyed in the Doctrin of the total deficiency of the visible Church which yet is maintained by divers chief Protestants as may at large be seen in Breerely and others out of whom I will here name Jewel saying The truth was unknown (c) Apol. part 4. c. 4. divis 2. And in his defence printed Ann. 1571. Pag. 426. at that time and unheard of when Martin Luther and Ulderick
Zwinglius first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel Perkins saith We say that (d) In his Exposâ—t on upon the Creed Pag. 400. bâ—fore the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundâ—ed years an Universal 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 year of (e) Propos 37. Pag 68. Christ three hundred and sixteen the Antichristian and Papistical raign hath begun raigning universally and without any debatable contradiction one thousand two hundred sixty years that is till Luther's time And that from the year of (f) Ibid. cap. 12. Pag. 161. col 3. 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 threescore years And that the (g) Ibid. in cap. 11. Pag. 145. Pope and Clergy have possessed the outward Visible Church of Christians even one thousand two hundred threescore years And that the (h) Ibid. Pag. 191. true Church abode latent and invisible And Brocard (i) Fol. 110. 123. upon the Revelations professeth to joyn in opinion with Napper Fulk affirmeth that in the (k) Answer to a counterfeit Catholique Pag. 16. time of Boniface the third which was the year six hundred and seven the Church was invisible and fled into the wilderness there to remain a long season Luther saith Primò solus eram At the first (l) In praef at operum suorum I was alone Jacob Hailbronerus one of the Disputants for the Protestant Patty in the conference at Ratisbon affirmeth (m) In suo Acatholico vol. à . 15. cap. 9. p. 479 that the true Church was interrupted by Apostasie from the true Faith Calvin saith It is absurd in the very (n) Epist 141. beginning to break one from another after we have been forced to make a separation from the whole world It were over-long to alledge the words of Joannes Regius Daniel Chamierus Beza Ochimus Castalio and others to the same purpose The reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrin was a desperate voluntary necessity because they being resolved not to acknowledge the Roman Church to be Christ's 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 affirm 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 profess that Christ always had and always will have upon earth a Visible Church otherwise saith he our Lord's (o) Pag. 154. promise of her stable (p) Mat. 16.18 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 Christ's body he seeketh to clear himself and others from Schism because saith he the property (q) Pag. 76. of Schism is witness the Donatists and Lucitâ—rians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates And if any Zâ—lots amongst us have proceeded to heavier censures their zeal may be excused but their charity and wisdom cannot be justified And elsewhere he acknowledgeth that the Roman Church hath those main and (r) Pag. 83. essential 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 Christ's Visible Church cannot perish it will be needless for me in this occasion to prove it S. Augustine doubted not to say The Prophets (s) In Psal 30. Com. 2. spoke more obscurely of Christ then of the Church because as I think they did forsee 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 prophesied about which greater contentions were to rise that it might turn to the condemnation of them who have seen it and yet gone forth And in another place he saith How do we confide (t) Epist 48. to have received manifestly Christ himself 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 affairs of his soul if upon earth there be no Visible Church of Christ Beside 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 do 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 unless labouring also for the (u) S. Aug. de Fide Symbolâ— c. 1. Salvation of others we profess with our mouths the same Faith which we bear in our hearts And if any man hold it lawful to dissemble and deny matters of Faith we cannot be assured but that they actually dissemble and hide Anabaptism Arianism yea Turcism and even Atheism or any other false belief under the outward profession of Calvinism Do not Protestants teach that preaching of the World 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. Austin account this Heresie so gross that he saith against those who in his time defended the like error But this Church which (w) In Psal 101. hath been of all Nations is no more she hath perished so say they that are in not in her O impudent speech And afterward This voice so abominable so detestable so full of presumption and falshood which is sustained with no truth inlightned with no wisdom seasoned with no salt vain rash heady pernitious the holy Ghost foresaw c. And peradventure some (x) De ovib c. â— one may say there are other sheep I know not where with which I am not acquainted yet God hath care of them But he is too absurd in humane sense that can imagine such things And these men do not consider that while then deny the perpetuity of a Visible Church they destroy their own present Church according to the argument which S. Augustine urged against the Donatists in these words (y) De Bapt. cont Donat. If the Church were lost in Cyprian's we may say in Gregory's
with whom they agree in Faith which is Schism in the most formal and proper signification thereof Moreover according to D. Potter those boisterous Creatures are properly Schismatiques For the reason why he thinks himself and such as he is to be cleared from Schism notwithstanding their division from the Roman Church is because according to his Divinity the property of (h) Pag. 76. Schism is witness 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 spake cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which they separated themselves and they do it directly as the Donatists in whom you exemplifie did by affirming that the true Church had perished and therefore they cannot be cleared from Schism if you may be their Judge Consider I pray you how many prime Protestants both domestical and forraign you have at one blow struck off from hope of Salvation and condemned to the lowest pit for the grievous sin of Schism And withall it imports you to consider that you also involve your self and other moderate Protestants in the self-same crime and punishment while you communicate with those who according to your own principles are properly and formally Schismatiques For if you held your self obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors and Corruptions which yet you confess were not Fundamental shall it not be much more damnable for you to live in Communion and Confraternity with those who defend an error of the failing of the Church which in the Donatists you confess (i) Pag. 126. to have been properly heretical 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 find alledged in the next number And this may suffice for confutation of the aforesaid Answer as it might have relation to the rigid Calvinists 17. For Confutation of those Protestants who hold that the Church of Christ had always a being and cannot err in Points Fundamental and yet teach that she may err in matters of less moment wherein if they forsake her they would be accounted not to leave the Church but only her corruptions I must say that they change the state of our present Question not distinguishing between internal Faith and external Communion not between Schism and Heresie This I demonstrate out of D. Potter himself who in express words teacheth that the promises which our Lord hath made (k) Pag. 151. 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 Fundamental And afterwards speaking of the Universal Church he saith It is comfort (l) Pag. 155. enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers and conserve her on earth against all enemies but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error till she be in heaven Out of which words I observe that according to D. Potter the self-same Church which is the Universal Church remaining the Universal true Church of Christ may fall into errors and corruptions from whence it clearly followeth that it is impossible to leave the External communion of the Church so corrupted and retain external communion with the Catholique Church since the Church Catholique and the Church so corrupted is the self-same one Church or company of men And the contrary imagination talks in a dream as if the errors 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 themselves for men cannot be said to live in or out of the Communion of any dead creature but with persons endued with life and reason and much less 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 themselves from the corruptions of the Church but not from the Church her self seeing the corruptions of the Church were inherent in the Church All this is made more clear if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct visible true Catholique Churches holding contrary Doctrines and divided in external Communion one of the which two Churches did triumph over all error and corruption in Doctrine and practice 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. Potter's own grounds that the Church may err in Points not Fundamental which were not true if you will imagine a certain visible Catholique Church free from error even in Points not Fundamental It contradicteth the words in which he said the Church may not hope to triumph over all error 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 Schism We must therefore truly affirm 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 external Communion of that corrupted Church he could not remain in the Communion of the Catholique Church no more than it is possible to keep company with D. Christopher Potter and not keep company with the Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxford if D. Potter and the Provost be one and the self-same man For so one should be and not be with him at the same time This very Argument drawn from the Unity of God's Church S. Cyprian urgeth to convince that Novatianus was cut ost from the Church in these words The Church is (m) Epist 76. ad Mag. One which being One cannot be both within and without If she be with Novatianus she was not with Cornelius But if she were with Cornelius who succeeded Fabianus by lawful ordination Novatiâ—nus is not in the Church I purposely here speak only of external Communion with the Catholique Church For in this Point there is great difference between internal acts of our understanding and will and of external deeds Our Understanding and Will are faculties as Philsophers speak abstractive and able to distinguish and as it were to part things though in themselves they be really conjoyned But real external deeds do take things in gross as they find them not separating things which in
damnable errors Remember I pray you what your self affirms pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remain there and here are taken away Yet neither here perfectly nor every where alike Behold a fair confession of corruptions still remaining in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not Fundamental as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not Fundamental What man of judgment will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt one 22. I still proceed to impugn you expresly upon your own grounds You say That it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capital dangers which can arise only from error in Fundamental Points why were not your first Reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of a pernicious greediness of more than enough For this enough which according to you is attained by not erring in Points Fundamental was enjoyed before Luther's reformation unless you will now against your self affirm that long before Luther there was no Church free from error in Fundamental Points Moreover if as you say no Church may hope to triumph over all error till she be in heaven You must either grant that errors not Fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Church or else you must affirm that all Community may and ought to be forsaken and so there will be no end of Schisms or rather indeed there can be no such thing as Schism because according to you all communities are subject to errors not Fundamental for which if they may be lawfully forsaken it followeth clearly that it is not Schism to forsake them Lastly since it is not lawful to leave the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sin and error You must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sin so neither by reason of errors not Fundamental because both sin and error are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven 23. Furthermore I ask Whether it be the Quantity and Number or Quality and Greatness of doctrinal errors that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion I prove that neither Not the Quality which is supposed to be beneath the degree of Points Fundamental or necessary to Salvation Not the Quantity or Number for the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecessary additions as you tearm them And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation they should grow to Fundamental errors into which your self teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such (g) Pag. 155. unprofitable stuffe laid on the roof destroys not the house whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundation And tell us I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot do 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 seventy seven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alledge his command that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not Fundamental What excuse can you feign to your selves who for Points not necessary to Salvation have been occasions causes and Authors of so many mischiefs as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach in Kingdoms in Common-wealths in private persons in publique Magistrates in body in soul in goods in life in Church in the State by Schisms by rebellions by war by famin by plague by bloud-shed by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth wherein as in a map of Desolation the heaviness of your crime appears 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 sin For by this device you sow seeds of endless Schisms and put into the mouth of aâ— Separatists a ready Answer how to avoid the note of Schism from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoever They will I say answer as you do prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not Fundamental 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 Fundamental the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was saith he nor can be (h) Pag. 75. any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself To depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrins and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to Salvation Mark his Doctrin that there can be no just cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may err in Points not Fundamental Therefore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for Points not Fundamental for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your self deny and I pray you consider whether you do not plainly contradict your self while in the words above recited you say there can be no just 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 err in Points not Fundamental 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 chiesest Answer that they left not the Church but her corruptions 26. Another evasion D. Potter bringeth to avoid the imputation of Schism and it is because they still acknowledg 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 clears us from the (i) Pag. 76. imputation of Schism 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 Answer which perhaps you may get some one to approve if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious Doctrins 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 Schism 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 judged that she retained all means necessary to Salvation I say because they so judged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himself and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation whereas those other Zelors 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 do it upon a different motive or reason Were it not a strange excuse if a man would think â—o cloak his rebellion by alleadging that he held the person against whom he rebelleth to be his lawful Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himself free from Schism 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 means to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemn foppery and do much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confess that they cannot clear themselves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation out Church Which is as much as if they should in plain terms say They must be damned unless we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemn your zealous brethren of Heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not clear your self from Schism which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of Faith as you must profess your self to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of Salvation and so condemn your self of Schism And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schism you cannot clear your self from that crime unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you do 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 (k) Pag. 20. damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be just and necessary (l) Pag. 77. cause That they that have the understanding and means to discover their error and neglect to use them (m) Pag. 79. we dare not flatter them say you with so easie a censure of hope of Salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schism to cut off from the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates how will you clear your self from Schism who dare not flatter us with so easie a censure and who affirm that a reconciliation with us is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertâ—ons by reason of dâ—fficulties which press you on all sides For you are loath to affiâ—m cleerly that we may be saved lest 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 you affirm that our Church erred in Points Fundamental or necessary to Salvation you know not how nor where nor among what company of men to find a perpetual visible Church of Christ before Luther And therefore your best shift is to say and unsay as your occasions command I do not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schism 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 exampie of the Donatists who were most formal and proper Heretiques and not Schismatiques as Schism is a vice distinct from Heresie Besides although the Donatists and Luciserians whom you also alledge had been meer Schismatiques yet it were against all good Logick from a particular to infer a general Rule to determine what is the property of Schism 28. A third device I find in D. Potter to clear his brethren from Schism There is saith he great difference between (n) Pag. 75. a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves 29. This I confess is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused For what devil incarnate could meerly pretend a separation and not rather some oâ—her motive of vertue truth profit or pleasure But now fince their pretended Reformation consisted as they gave out in forsaking the corruptions of the Church the Reformation of themselves and their division from us falls out to be one and the self-same thing Nay we see that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation yet they symbolize and consent in the general Point of forsaking our pretended corruptions An evident sign that the thing upon which their thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idaea of Religion but a setled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome Wherefore this Metaphysical speculation that they intended only to reform themselves cannot possibly excuse them from Schism unless first they be able to prove that they were obliged to depart from us Yet for as much as concernes the fact it self it is clear that Luther's revolt did not proceed from any zeal of reformation The motive which put him upon so wretched and unfortunate a work were Covetousness 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 witness that he fell into these troubles casually and (o) Casu non voluntate in has turbaslincidi Deum ipsum testor against his will not upon any intention of Reformation not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might (p) Act. et Mon. Pag. 404. happen And he began to preach against Indulgences when he knew not what (q) Sleidan l. 16 fol. 232. the matter meant For saith he I scarcely understood (r) Sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of Indulgences meant In so much as afterwards Luther did much mislâ—ke of his own undertaken course oftentimes saith he wishing (Å¿) Luth in colloq mensal that I had never begun that business And Fox saith It is apparent that (t) Act. Mon. Pag pag. 404. Luther promised Cardinal Cajeran to keepe silence provided also his adversaries would do the like M. Cowper reporteth further that Luther by his letter submitted (u) Cowp in his Chronicle himself to the Pope so
Mat. 18. the Church let him be to thee as a Pagan or Publican And He (b) Luk. 10.16 that despiseth you despiseth me We heard above Optatus Milevitanus saying to Parmenianus that both he and all those other who continued in the Schism begun by Majorinus did inherit their Fore-fathers Schism and yet Parmenianus was the third Bishop after Majorinus in his Sea and did not begin but only continue the Schism For saith this holy Father Caecilianus (c) Lib. 1. cont Parm. went not out of Majorinus thy Grand-father but Majorinus from Caecilianus neither did Caecilianus depart from the Chair of Peter or Cyprian but Majorinus in whose Chair thou fittest which before Majorinus Luther had no beginning Seeing it is evident that these things passed in this manner that for example Luther departed from the Church and not the Church from Luther it is clear that you be HEIRS both of the givers up of the Bible to be burned and of SCHISMATIQUES And the Regal Power or example of Henry the Eighth could not excuse his subjects from Schism according to what we have heard out of S. Chrysostom saying Nothing doth so much provoke (d) Hom. 11. in ep ad Eph. the wrath of Almighty God as that the Church should be divided Although we should do innumerable good deeds if we divide the full Ecclesiastical Congregation we shall be punished no less than they who did rend his natural Body for that was done to the gain of the whole world though not with that intention but this hath no good in it at all but that the greatest hurt riseth from it These things are spoken not only to those who bear office but to such also as are governed by them Behold therefore how lyable both Subjects and Superiours are to the sin of Schism if they break the unity of Gods Church The words of S. Paul can in no occasion be verified more than in this of which we speak They who do such things (e) Rom. 1.31 are worthy of death and not only they that do them but they also that consent with the doers In things which are indifferent of their own nature Custom may be occasion that some act not well begun may in time come to be lawfully continued But no length of Time no Quality of Persons no Circumstance of Necessity can legitimate actions which are of their own nature unlawful and therefore division from Christs Mystical Body being of the number of those Actions which Divines teach to be intrinsecè malas evil of their own nature and essence no difference of Persons or Time can ever make it lawful D. Potter saith There neither was nor can be any cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself And who dates say that it is not damnable to continue a Separation from Christ Prescription cannot in conscience run when the first beginner and his successors are conscious that the thing to be prescribed for example goods or lands were unjustly possessed at the first Christians are not like strayes that after a certain time of wandring from their right home fall from their owner to the Lord of the Soil but as long as they retain the indelible Character of Baptism and live upon earth they are obliged to acknowledge subjection to Gods Church Humane Laws may come to nothing by discontinuance of time but the Law of God commanding us to conserve Unity in his Church doth still remain The continued disobedience of Children cannot deprive Parents of their parental right nor can the Grand-child be undutiful to his Grand-Father because his Father was unnatural to his own Parent The longer Gods Church is so disobeyed the profession of her Doctrin denyed her Sacraments neglected her Liturgy condemned her Unity violated the more grievous the fault grows to be As the longer a man withholds a due debt or retains his neighbours goods the greater injustice he commits Constancy in evil doth not extenuate but aggravate the same which by extension of time receiveth increase of strength and addition of greater malice If these mens conceits were true the Church might come to be wholly divided by wicked Schisms and yet after some space of time none could be accused of Schism nor be obliged to return to the visible Church of Christ and so there should remain no one true visible Church Let therefore these men who pretend to honour reverence and believe the Doctrin and practice of the Visible Church and to condemn their forefathers who forsook her and say They would not have done so if they had lived in the dayes 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 (f) Mar. 23. ver 29 c. the Prophets Sepulchers and garnish the monuments of just men and say If we had been in our Fathers dayes we had not been their fellows in the bloud of the Prophets Therefore you are a testimony to your own selves that you are the sons 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 Schism by them begun are guilty of Schism by departing from the visible true Church of Christ it remaineth that we examin 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 return and then we shall have performed what was proposed to be handled in the fifth Point 47. That the Roman Church I speak not for the present of the particular Diocess of Rome but of all visible Churches dispersed throughout the whole world agreeing in Faith with the Chair of Peter 5. Point Luther and the rest departed from the Roman Church 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 assign for notes of the Church the true Preaching of Gods Words and due administration of Sacraments both which for the substance you cannot deny to the Roman Church since you confess that she wanted nothing Fundamental or necessary to Salvation and for that very cause you think to clear your self from Schism whose property as you say is to cut off from the (g) Pag. 76. Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Now that Luther and his fellows 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 unless you will acknowledge your self to deserve the just imputation of Schism Neither can you deny her to be
truly Catholique by reason of pretended corruptions not Fundamental For your self avouch and endeavour to prove that the true Catholique Church may err in such Points Moreover I hope you will not so much as go about to prove that when Luther rose there was any other true visible Church disagreeeing from the Roman and agreeing with Protestants in their particular Doctrins and you cannot deny but that England in those days-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 affirm the Roman Church to have lost the nature and being of a true Church do 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 maintain that the Roman Church is free from Fundamental 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 Zelols amongst us have proceeded (h) Ibid. to heavier censures their zeal may be excused but their Charity and wisdom cannot be justified 48. And to touch particulars which perhaps some may object No man is ignorant that the Grecians even the Schismatical Grecians do in most Points agree with Roman Catholiques and disagree from the Protestant Reformation They teach Transubstantiation which Point D. Potter also (i) Pag. 225. confesseth Invocation of Saints and Angels Veneration of Reliques and Images Auricular Confession enjoyned Satisfaction Confirmation with Chrism Extream Unction All the seven Sacraments Prayer Sacrifice Alms for the dead Monachism 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 Jeremiae Patriarchae Constantinop de Augustana consessione c. Wittembergae anno 1584. by the Protestant (k) De statu Eccles Pag. 253. 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 affirm that the Doctrins debated between the Protestants (l) Pag. 22â— and Rome are only the partial and particular fancies of the Roman Church unless 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 Arcudius 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 Heresie of the Grecians that the Holy-Ghost proceeds not from the Son I suppose that Protestants disavow them in that error as we do 49. D. Potter will not I think so much wrong his reputation as to tell us that the Waldenses Wiecliffe Huss or the like were Protestants because in some things they disagreed from Catholiques For he well knows that the example of such men is subject to these manifest exceptions They were not of all Agesâ— nor 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 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy nor Succession of Bishops Priests and Pastors They differed among themselves and from Protestants also They agreed in divers things with us against Protestants They held Doctrins manifestly abusurd and damnable heresies 50. The Waldenses began not before the year 1218. so far were they from Universality of all Ages For their Doctrin first they denyed all Judgments 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 means to make their Master Waldo a meer 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 not Churches for a walled Church they reputed as a Barn Fifthly that men ought not to take an Oath in any case Sixthly that those persons sinned mortally who accompanyed without hope of issue Seventhly 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 civil Magistrate being guilty of mortal sin did enjoy their dignity or were to be obeyed Ninthly they condemned Princes and Judges Tenthly they assinned singing in the Church to be an hellish clamor Eleventhly they taught that men might dissemble their Religion and so accordingly they went to Catholique Churches dissembling their Faith and made Offertoâ—ies Confessions and Communions after a dissembling manner Waldo was so unlearned that saith (m) Act. Mon. â—… Pag. 628. 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 conferr the form of Religion in his time to the insallible 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 gross heresies of Waldo The followers of Waldo were like their Master so unlearned that some of them saith (n) Ibid. Fox expounded the words Joan. 1. Sui eum non receperunt Swine did not receive hâ—m And to conclude they agreed in divers things with Catholiques against Protestants as may be seen in (o) Tract 2. cap. 2. sect sâ—â—…d 3. Bâ—erely 51. Neither can it be pretended that these are slanders forged by Catholiques For besides that the same things are testified by Protâ—stant writers as Illyricus Cowper and others our Authors cannot be suspected of partiality in disfavour of Protestants unless you will say perhaps that they were Prophets and some hundred years ago did both foresee that there were to be 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 and disagreed from them in others And upon what ground can they believe our Author for that part wherein the Waldenses were like to Protestants and imagin they lyed the rest 52. Neither could Wickliffe continue a Church never interrupted from the time of the Waldenses after whom he lived more than one hundred and fifty years to wit the year 1371. He 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 seems to me (p) In serm de Assump Mariae
impossible that we should be rewarded without the intercession of the Virgin Mary He held seven Sacraments Purgatory and other Points And against both Catholiques and Protestants he maintained sundry damnable Doctrins as divers Protestant Writers relate As first If a Bishop or Priest be in deadly sin he doth not indeed either give Orders Consecrate or Baptize Secondly That Ecclesiastical Ministers ought not to have any temporal possessions nor propriety in any thing but should beg and yet he himself brake into heresie because he had been deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a certain Benefice as all Schisms and Heresies begin upon passion which they seek to cover with the cloak of Reformation Thirdly he condemned lawful Oaths like the Anabaptists Fourthly he taught that all things came to pass by absolute necessity Fifthly he defended humane merits as the wicked Pelagians did namely as proceeding from â—atural forces without the necessary help of Gods grace Sixthly that no man is a Civil Magistrate while he is in mortal sin and that the people may at their pleasure correct Princes when they offend by which Doctrin he proves himself both an Heretique and a Traytour 53. As for Huss his chiefest Doctrins were That Lay people must receive in both kinds and That Civil Lords Prelates and Bishops lose all right and authority while they are in mortal sin For other things he wholly 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 Civil Dominion was forbidden to the Clergie 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 evil By these particulars if is apparent that Husse agreed with Protestants against us in one only Point of both kinds which according to Luther is a thing indifferent because he teacheth that Christ in this matter (q) In epist ad Bohemâ—s commanded nothing as necessary And he saith further If thou come to a place (r) De utraque specie Sacram. where one only kind is administred use one kind only as others do Melancthon likewise holds it a a thing (Å¿) In Cent. epist Theol. pag. 225. indifferent and the same is the opinion of some other Protestants All which considered it is clear that Procestants 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 them out a perpetual visible Church of theirs for the reasons above (t) Numb 49. specified 54. If D. Potter would go so far off as to fetch the Muscovites Armenians Georgians Aethiopians or Abissines into his Church they would prove over dear bought For they eiâ—her hold the damnable Heresie of Eutyches or use Circumcision or agree with the Greek or Roman Church And it is most certain that they have nothing to do with the Doctrin 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 follows that she is the true Catholique 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 Schism by dividing themselves from the Communion of the Roman Church Which is clearly convinced out of D. Potter himself although the Roman Church were but a particular Church For he saith Whosoever professes (u) Pag. 67. himself to forsake the Communion of any one member of the body of Christ must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole Since therefore in the same place he expresly acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a member of the body of Christ and that it is clear they have forsaken her it evidently follows that they have forsaken the whole and therefore are most properly Schismatiques 56. And lastly since the crime of Schism is so grievous that according to the Doctrin of holy Fathers rehearsed above no multitude of good works no moral 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 sin from damnation I leave it to be considered whether it be not true Charity to speak as we believe and to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us That whosoever either begins or continues a division from the Roman Church which we have proved to be Christ's true Militant Church on earth cannot without effectâ—al repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven And so I conclude with these words of blessed S. Augustiae It is common (w) Cont. Parm lib. 2. c. 3. 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 unity whatsoever they work though they seem to do it with great care and diligence can no more avail them against the wrath of God than the Spider's 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 ANSWER to the FIFTH CHAPTER The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism 1. AD § 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. In the seven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue and deserve a censure As 2. First That Schism could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unless there always 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 Schism might now be and be a Division from the present visible Church As though in France there never had been until now a lawful 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 Soveraign Authority 3. That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all Ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithful people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithful as it is plain you do free from all error in faith then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to be 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
contempt Dissimulation Opposition Oppression of them may consist with salvation I truly for my part though I hope very well of all such as seeking all truth find that which is necessary who endeavouring to free themselves from all Errors any way contrary to the purity of Christianity yet fail of performance and remain in some yet if I did not find in my self a love and desire of all profitable truth If I did not put away idleness and prejudice and worldly affections and so examin to the bottom all my opinions of divine matters being prepar'd in mind to follow God and God only which way soever He shall lead me If I did not hope that I either do or endeavour to do these things certainly I should have little hope of obtaining salvation 62. But to oblige any man under pain of damnation to forsake a Church by reason of such errours against which Christ thought it superfluous to promise his assistance and for which he neither denies his grace here nor his glory hereafter what is it but to make the narrow way to heaven narrower than Christ left it Answ It is not for Christ himself hath obliged us hereunto He hath forbad us under pain of damnation to profess what we believe not and consequently under the same penalty to leave that Communion in which we cannot remain without this hypocritical profession of those things which we are convinc'd to be erroneous But then besides it is here falsely supposed as hath been shewed already that Christ hath not promised assistance to those that seek it but only in matters simply necessary Neither is there any reason why any Church even in this world should despair of victory over all errours pernitious or noxious provided she humbly and earnestly implore divine assistance depend wholly upon it and be not wanting to it Though a Triumph over all sin and errour that is security that she neither doth nor can err be rather to be desired than hoped for on earth being a felicity reserved for heaven 63. Ad § 21. But at least the Roman Church is as infallible as Protestants and Protestants as fallible as the Roman Church therefore to forsake the Roman Church for errours what is it but to flit from one erring Society to another Ans The inconsequence of this Argument is too apparent Protestants may err as well as the Church of Rome therefore they did so Boys in the Schools know that à Posse ad Esse the Argument follows not He is equally fallible who believes twice two to be four as he that believes them to be twenty yet in this he is not equally deceived and he may be certain that he is not so One Architect is no more infallible than another and yet he is more secure that his work is right and streight who hath made it by the level than he which hath made it by guess and by chance So he that forsakes the errours of the Church of Rome and therefore renounceth her communion that he may renounce the profession of her errours though he knows himself fallible as well as those whom he hath forsaken yet he may be certain as certain as the nature of the thing will bear that he is not herein deceived because he may see the doctrin forsaken by him repugnant to Scripture and the doctrin embraced by him consonant to it At least this he may know that the doctrin which he hath chosen to him seems true and the contrary which he hath forsaken seems false And therefore without remorse of conscience he may profess that but this he cannot 64. But we are to remember that according to D. Potter the visible Church hath a blessing not to err in Fundamentals in which any private Reformer may fail therefore there was no necessity of forsaking the Church out of whose communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into damnable errours Answ The visible Church is free indeed from all errours absolutely destructive and unpardonable but not from all errour which in it is self damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them that keep themselves in them by their own voluntary and avoidable fault From such errours which are thus damnable D. Potter doth no where say that the visible Church hath any priviledge or exemption Nay you your self teach that he plainly teacheth the contrary and thereupon will allow him to be no more charitable to Papists than Papists are to Protestants and yet upon this affected mistake your Discourse is founded in almost forty places of your Book Besides any private man who truly believes the Scripture and seriously endeavours to know the will of God and to do it is as secure as the visible Church more secure than your Church from the danger of erring in fundamentals for it is impossible that any man so qualified should fall into any errour 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 farr from securing me or any man from damnable errour 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 doctrin true profess this I cannot but I must lie perpetually and exulcerate my conscience And though your errours were not in themselves damnable yet to resist the known Truth and to continue in the profession of known errours and falsehood is certainly a capital sin and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven 65. But neither is the Church of Protestants perfectly free from errours and corruptions so the Doctor confesses p. 69. which he can only excuse by saying they are not fundamental as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed not to be fundamental And what man of judgment will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one Ans And yet you your self 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 judgment continue in this Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as a Church supposed to be corrupted requires the belief and profession of her supposed corruptions as the condition of her Communion which this Church confessedly corrupted doth not What man of judgment will think it any disparagement to his judgment to preferr the better though not simply the best before that which is stark naught To preferr indifferent good health before a diseased and corrupted state of Body To preferr a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-run with weeds and thorns And therefore though Protestants have some Errours 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
pardon the errours of an erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should err with the Church or if we do not that we should against conscience profess the errours 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 errours of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schism Ans True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we do 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 be proved by Schismatiques They may object errours to other Churches as well as we do to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appears not To the Priests and Elders of the Jews imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles Saint Peter and St. John answered They must obey God rather than 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 cloak of his Rebellion and Who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in those very formal 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 Traytors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismatiques may make use of this Answer therefore all that do make use of it are Schismatiques But moreover it is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrin 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 Schisms and therefore it must not be forsaken Ans We must not do evil to avoid evil neither are all courses presently lawful by which inconveniences may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chief Mufty of the Turks it is apparent there-would be no divisions yet unity is not to be purchased at so dear 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 than unanimous concord in damned errours As it is better for men to go to heaven by divers ways or rather by divers paths of the same way than in the same path to go on peaceably to hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas 73. But there can be no just cause to forsake the Church so the Doctor grants who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may err in points not fandamental therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errours 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 do 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 retains and defends this I deny and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirms it 74. Ad § 26 27. What prodigious doctrins say you are these Those Protestants who believe that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schism But others c. Prodigious doctrins indeed But who I pray are they that teach them Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schism 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 plain precepts of Christ both Ceremonial in mutilating the Communion and Moral in points of Superstition and Idolatry and most bloody tyranny which is without question to err in necessary matters Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schism for holding so if he should he should call himself a Schismatique Only he says such if there be any such as affirm that ignorant souls among you who had no means to know the truth cannot possibly be saved that their wisdom and charity cannot be justified Now you your self have plainly affirmed That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saved and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say that Protestants err in no points necessary to salvation For that may be in it self and in ordinary course where there are means of knowledge necessary which to a man invincibly ignorant will prove 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 he say they did well to forsake her upon this ridiculous reason because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation Do you think us so stupid as that we cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter says and that which you make him say He vindicates Protestants from Schism two ways The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismatiques never have because they that have it are no Schismatiques For schism is always a causeless 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 motive to it And whereas he says 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 judged you a member of the body of Christ Just as if a brother should leave 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 leave your company in these il courses and I do well to do so because you are my brother so making that the cause of leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75. But you say The very reason for which he acquitteth himself from Schism 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 Schism by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawful matter to his lawful Soveraign should say to him Herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebel because I acknowledg you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawful should not he be an egregious Sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I do well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawful Soveraign Certainly he that joyns this acknowledgment with his necessitated obedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of disobedience doth ill Urge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceive 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 be the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allows you to be a Part of it 76. And whereas you pretend to find such unspeakable comfort herein that we cannot clear our selves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do 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 dear For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damn men for errour who were without their own 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 have eyes to see and will not see who have ears to hear and will not hear 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 desperately inconsistent nor to say we must be damn'd unless you may be saved but that we assure our selves if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that we hope and I tell you again Spes est rei incertae nomen that some of you may possibly be 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 do so unless you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you do 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 errours in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78. But Schism consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must profess you say that we agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamental points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schism divide from that Church which errs in any point of faith Fundamental or otherwise if she require the profession of this Error among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the later I deny the syllogism as having manifestly four tearms 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 just and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which have understanding and means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to be slattered with hope of salvation they do 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 he 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 means to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church and 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 says There is a great difference between a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves this you say is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused It seems then in your judgment 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 reform themselves But then methinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schism that to this day never any Theef or Murtherer should have 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 consorming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himself 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 persecution 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 only and not convicted to have been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips and infirmities of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order and Ceremony or for some Errour in Doctrin neither pernitious nor hurtful to Faith or Piety sepatate 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 not approved there but reprehended and confuted or because being of impious conversation they are impatient of their Churches censure I would know I say whether all or any of these may with any face or without extream impudency put in this plea of Protestants and pretend with as much likelyhood as they that they did not separate from others but only reform themselves But suppose they were so impudent as to say so in their own defence falsely doth it follow by any good Logick that therefore this Apology is not to be imployed by Protestants who may say so truly We make say they no Schism from you but only a reformation of our selves This you reply
most certain and infallible wherein it surpasseth humane Opinion it must relie upon some motive and ground which may be able to give it certainly and yet not release it from Obscurity For if this motive ground or formal 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 and ground of our faith were obscurely propounded to us but were not in it self 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 self that the act of faith may remain 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 transfâ—â—â— Certainty to our faith and yet not draw it out of obscurity because no humane discourse or demonstration can evince that God revealeth any supernatural truth since God hath been no less perfect than he is although hâ—â—â—â— never revealed any of those objects which we now believe 4 Nevertheless because Almighty God out of his infinite wisdom and sweetness doth conour with his Creatures in such sort as may befit the temper and exigence of their natures and because Man is a Creature endued with reason God doth not exact of his Will or Understanding any other then as the Apostle faith rationabile (f) Rom. 12.1 obsequium an Obedience sweetned with good reason which could not so appear if our Understanding were summoned to believe with certainty things no way represented as infallible and certain And therefore Almighty God obliging us under pain of eternal camnation to believe with greatest certainty divers verities not known by the light of natural reason cannot fail to furnish our Understanding with such inducements motives and arguments as may sufficiently perswade any mind which is not partial 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 (g) Psal 92. credible exceedingly These inducements are by Divines called argumenta credibilitatis arguments of credibility which though they cannot make us evidently see what we believe yet they evidently convince that in one wisdom and prudence the objects of faith deserve credit and ought to be accepted as things revealed by God For without such reasons and inducements our judgment of faith could not be conceived prudent holy Scripture telling us that be who soon (h) Eccles 19. â— believes is light of heart By these arguments and inducements our Understanding is both satisfied with evidence of credibility and the objects of faith retain their obsenrity because it is a different thing to be evidently credible and evidently true as those who were present at the Miracles wrought by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles did not evidently see their doctrin 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 truth 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 Predecessors and these from theirs upward till we come to the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour which gradation is known by evidence of sense by reading books 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 self same thing if it had been but a fiction invented by themselves as ancient Tertullian well saith How is it likely that so many (i) Praescript c. 28. and so great Churches should err in one saith Among many events there is not one issue the error of the Churches must needs have varied But that which among many is sound 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 mâ—n 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 infernal spirits and lastly the perpetual 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 powerful ways did communicate to their Doctrin to the Church of their times together with the divine Certainty which they received from our blessed Saviour himself revealing to Mankind what he heard from his Father and so we conclude with Tertullian We receive it from the Churches the Churches (k) Praese c. 21. 37. from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from his Father And if we once interrupt this line of succession most certainly made known by means of holy Tradition we cannot conjoyn the present Church and doctrin with the Church and doctrin of the Apostles buâ— must invent some new means 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 known but by Tradition as is truly observed by Tertullian saying I will prescribe that (l) Praesc c. 22. there is no means to prove what the Apostles preached but by the same Church which they sounded 6 Thus then we are to proceed By evidence of manifest and incorrupt Tradition I know that there hath always 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 Sanctity Unity c. and by all those ways whereby the Apostles and our Blessed Saviour himself confirmed their doctrin we are assured that what the said never-interrupted Church proposeth doth deserve to be accepted and acknowledged as a divine truth By evidence of Sense we see that the same Church proposeth such and such doctrins as divine truths that is as revealed and testified by Almighty God By this divine Testimony we are infallibly assured of what we believe and so the last period ground motive and formal object of our Faith is the infallible testimony of that supreme Verity which
no wonder that no one can be excused from deadly and damnable sin for if voluntary Blasphemy and Perjury which are opposed only to the infused Moral Vertue of Religion can never be excused from mortal sin much less can Heresie be excused which opposeth the Theological Vertue of Faith 11 If any object that Schism may seem to be a greater sin than Heresie because the Vertue of Charity to which Schism is opposite is greater than Faith according to the Apostle saying Now there remain (o) 1 Cor. 13.13 Faith Hope Charity but the greater of these is Charity S. Thomas answers in these words Charity hath two Objects one principal to wit the Divine (p) 2.2 q. 39. ar 2. in corp ad 3. Goodness and another secondary namely the good of our Neighbour But Schism and other sins which are committed against our Neighbour are opposite to Charity in respect of this secondary good which is less than the object of Faith which is God as he is the Prime Verity on which Faith doth relie and therefore these sins are less than Infidelity He takes Infidelity after a general manner as it comprehends Heresie and other vices against Faith 12 Having therefore sufficiently declared wherein Heresie 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 err 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 formal Heresie I prove by these reasons To oppose any truth propounded by the visible true Church as revealed by God is formal Heresie as we have shewed out of the desinition 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 she propounded as divine revealed truths things which they judged either to be false or humane inventions Therefore they committed formal Heresie 14 Moreover every Errour against any doctrin revealed by God is a damnable Heresie whether the matter in it self be great or small as I proved before and therefore either the Protestants or the Roman Church must be guilty of formal Heresie because one of them must err against the word and testimony of God but you grant perforce that the Roman Church doth not err damnably and I add that she cannot err damnably because she is the truly Catholique Church which you confess cannot err damnably Therefore Protestants must be guilty of formal Heresie 15 Besides we have shewed that the visible Church is Judge 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 Heresie 16 Again 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 formal Heretique I demonstrate in this manner To say that God's visible true Church is not universal but confined to one only place or corner of the world is according to your own express words (q) Pag. 126. properly Heresie against that Article of the Creed wherein we profess to believe the holy Catholique Church And you brand Donatus with heresie because he limited the universal Church to Africa But it is manifest and acknowledged by Luther himself and other chief Protestants that Luther's Reformation when it first began and much more for divers ages before was not Universal nor spread over the world but was confined to that compass of ground which did contain Luther's body Therefore his Reformation cannot be excused from formal Heresie If S. Augustine in those times said to the Donatists There are innumerable testimonies (r) Epist 50. of holy Scripture in which it appeareth that the Church of Christ is not only in Africa as these men with most impudent vanity do 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 City of Wittemberg or to the place where Luther's 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 less effectually against Luther than against the Donatists For having out of those words In thy seed all Nations shall be blessed proved that God's Church must be universal he saith Why (Å¿) De Unit. Eccles cap. 6. do you superadd by saying that Christ remains heir in no part of the earth except where he may have Donatus for his Coheir Give me this Universal 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 universal 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 universal Church She hath this (t) Cont. lit Petil. lib. 1. cap. 104. most certain mark that she cannot be hidden She is then known to all Nations The Sect of Donatus is unknown to many Nations therefore that cannot be she The Sect of Luther at least when he began and much more before his beginning was unknown to many Nations therefore that cannot be she 17 And that it may yet further appear 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 than that part of Africa where their faction raigned but only that in fact it was so confined because all the rest of the Church was prophaned by communicating with Caecilianus whom they falsly affirmed to have been ordained Bishop by those who were Traditors or givers 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 City but indeed as Baronius (u) Anno 321. nu 2. Spond observeth that the world might account them Catholiques by communicating with the Bishop of Rome to communicate with whom was ever taken by the Ancient Fathers as an assured sign of being a true Catholique They had also as S. Augustin witnesseth a pretended (w) De Uâ—i Eccles c
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 Doctrin of her own infallibility whereby her errors are made incurable by her pretending that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to her doctrin and not her doctrin to be judg'd of by Scripture whereby she makes the Scripture uneffectual for her Reformation 20. Ad § 18. I was very glad when I heard you say The Holy Scripture and antient Fathers do assign Separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie for I was in good hope that no Christian would so belie the Scripture as to say so of it unless he 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 self good Sir it is a very hainous crime to say Thus saith the Lord when the Lord doth not say so I expected therefore some Scripture should have been alledged wherein it should have been 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 always 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 we 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 Unum 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 We suppose them lastly wise men especially being assisted by the spirit of wisdom and such as knew that a doubtful and 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 doctrin 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 Gospel of Christ could not possibly have omitted any one of them this most necessary point of faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professes 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 have no reason to be very proud of for he says the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not have fail'd to have told them once at least in plain terms that their Faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would have forborn to put them in fear of an impossibility as he doth in his eleventh Chapter 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 Jews had done Me-thinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have failed to have given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to 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 he should have given the world this as you pretend only sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholick 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 Rome How was it possible that S. James and S. Jude in their Catholique Epistles should not give this Catholique direction Me-thinks S. John instead of saying He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses do quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sons of God should have said He that adheres to the doctrin of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this mark ye shall know him What man not quite out of his wits if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrin that without the belief hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himself 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 of them say it plainly so much as once but leave it to be collected from uncertain Principles by many more uncertain Consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvel if he censure other inferiour servants of Christ as 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 assigns separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie But instead hereof what have you brought us but meer impertinencies S. John 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 Councel 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 forwarns 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 strange and unheard-of strain of Logick Unless 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 Jesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confess as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretiques for it speaks only of some who believed and taught an Error while it was yet a question and not
conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be alwayes so he sayes not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Anti-christ that the Roman Church in particular was fore-warned that she also Rom. 11. Nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they lookt not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no Reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appears manifestly out of this Book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the doctrin of the Chiliasts was in his judgement Apostolique Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appears to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgements in the point are any way recorded are for it and Justin Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not In Dial. cum Tryphon he reckons amongst Heretiques Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Irenaeus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Heretical and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto Errour by holding contradictions Fifthly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noon that though Irenaeus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the doctrin which he there delivers and defends against the Heretiques of his â—ime viz. That there is one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witness of Tradition in general Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaim'd the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrin and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of this Excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Heretiques though separated and cut off from the Roman Church Cardinal Perron to avoid the stroak of this convincing argument raiseth a cloud of eloquent words Lib. 3. cap. 2. Of his Reply to King Iames. c. 2. sect 32. which because you borrow them of him in your Second part I will here insert and with short censures dispel and let his Idolaters see that Truth is 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. IRENAEUS 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. JOHN had introduced d for a time in their Provinces Calv. ubi supra because of the neighbourhood of the Jews and to bury the Synagogue with honour and not according to the universal 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 Ruffin in vers hist Eccl Eus l. 5 c. 24. but e against those that object it for who sees not that S. IRENAEUS 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 Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Irenaeus saith Eusebius did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which â—eld this ancient tradition And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith Ruffin ib. c. 24. Iren l. 3. c. 3.1 Book Ch. 25. 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. IRENAEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power he that cites To the Roman Church because of a more powerful principality that is to say as above appeareth h because of a principality more powerful than the temporal or as we have expounded otherwhere because of a more powerful Original i It is necessary that every Church should agree And k therefore also S. IRENAEUS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him and of the other Bishops of the Gauls assembled in a Council holden expresly for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 22. nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in another Council holden expresly 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 Iren. apud Euseb hist Eccl. 5. c. 26. 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 custom c. and nevertheless none of those that observed it have been excommunicated And yet O admirable providence of God the l success of the after-ages shewed that even in the use of his power the Popes proceeding was just For after the death of Victor the Councils of Nicea of Constantinople and of Ephesus Conc. Antioch c. 1. Conc. Const c. 7. Conc. Eph. p. 2. act 6. excommunicated again those that held the same custom 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 do annex two
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 knows signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should do because that the affairs of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus sayes not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the Adjacent Churches for so he expounds himself in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithful round about should resort With much more reason therefore we return the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the Roman how could he and all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinal 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 than truly that all Cardinal Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two hours Had Cardinal Perron wrote his Book in two hours 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 actual practice which Proceeding there he justly condemns of evident injustice His words are * In his Letter to Casaubon towards the end For who knows 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 always some Paralogism hid against the express words and the lively and actual practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that it 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 Judges 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 imployed against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectual than forrain and for his omitting to press 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 parallels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himself and others not Bishops of Rome Both they saith he speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and we also among our selves retain it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to do so l If the Pope's 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 do you account them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councels did no way shew the Pope's proceedings just but rather the contrary For though they setled an uniformity in this matter yet they setled it as a matter formerly indifferent and not as a matrer of faith or necessity as it is evident out of * In ep ad Episcopos in Africa Where he clearly shews that this question was not a question was not a question of faith by saying The Council of Nice was celebrated by occasion of the Arrian Heresie and the difference about Easter In so much as they in Syria and Cilicia and Mesopotamia did differ herein from us and kept this Feast on the same day with the Jews But thanks be to God an agreement was made as concerning the Faith so also concerning this holy Feast Athanasius and consequently they rather declare Victor's proceeding unjust who excommunicated so many Churches for differing from him in an indifferent matter m It seems then Polycrates might be a Saint and a Martyr and yet think the commands of the Roman Church enjoyned upon pain of damnation contrary to the commandements of God Besides S. Peter himself the head of the Church the Vicar of Christ as you pretend made this very answer to the high Priest yet I hope you will not say he was his inferior and obliged to obey him Lastly who sees not that when the Pope commands us any thing unjust as to communicate Lay-men in one kind to use the Latin Service c. we may very fitly say to him It is better to obey God than men and yet never think of any authority he hath over us n Between requesting and summoning me-thinks there should be some difference and Polycrates says no more but he was requested by the Church of Rome to call them and did so Here then as very often the Cardinal is fain to help the dice with a false translation and his pretence being false every one must see that that which he pretends to be insinuated by it is clearly inconsequent o Polycrates was deceived if he believed it to be against Gods Commandement and the Pope deceived as much in thinking it to be Gods commandement for it was neither one nor the other but an indifferent matter wherein God had not interposed his Authority Neither did the Councel of Nice embrace the Censure of Victor by acknowledging his Excommunication to be just and well grounded for which the Cardinal neither doth pretend nor can produce any proof any way comparable to the fore-alledged words of Athanasius testifying the contrary though perventure having setled the observation and reduced it to an uniformity they might excommunicate those who afterward should trouble the Churches peace for an indifferent matter And thus much for Irenaeus 31 I come now to S. Austin and to the first place out of him where he seems to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour meant when he said Upon this Rock c. I answer first we have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austin himself was not but retracts it as uncertain and leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly What he says of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he says it elsewhere of all the Successions in all other
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 souls Neither is it grounded upon your Charitable Judgement as you (l) Page 81. speak but upon an inevitable necessity for you either to grant salvation to our Church or to entail certain damnation upon your own because yours can have no being till Luther unless ours be supposed to have been the true Church of Christ And since you term this Argument a Charm take heed you be none of those who according to the Prophet David do not hear the vice of him (m) Ps 57.6 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 Baptism when you come to the contrary words of the Donatists you adde No Church No Salvation making the Argument to have quinq 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 self a few leaves after acknowledge that the Donatists maintained an error which was in the Matter and Nature of it properly heretical against that Article of the Creed wherein we profess to believe the holy (n) Page 126. Catholique Church and consequently you cannot allow salvationi to them as you do and must do to us And therefore the Donatists could not make the like argument agains 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 Baptism was like to Ours touching the Security and Certainty of our Salvation and therefore that Catholiques should have esteemed the Baptism of the Donatists more certain than 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 Baptism administred by Heretiques observing due Matter Forme c. is valid to rebaptize any so baptized had been both a sacriledge in reiterating a Sacrament not reiterable and a profession also of a damnable Heresy and therefore had not been more safe but certainly damnable But you confess that in the doctrin 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 profess as we do 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 Baptism was good yea and good in such sort as that unless 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 Baptism administred by the Catholiques was not good nor that it was any Sacriledge to reiterate the same Baptism 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 confess that our doctrin contains no damnable error and that our Church is so certainly a true Church that unless ours be true you cannot pretend any Yea you grant that you should be guilty of Schism if you did cut off our Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation But we neither do aor can grant that yours is a true Church or that within it there is hope of salvation Therefore it is safest for you to joyne with us And now against whom hath your Objection greatest force 9. But I wonder nor 〈◊〉 little and so I think will ever body else what the reason may be that you do not so much as go 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 examin the place 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 soul 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. Augustin gives to the Donatists is directly against your self and the same which I have given Namely that Catholiques (o) Ad lit Petil. l. 2. cap. 108. approve the Baptism of Donatists but abhorre their heresie of Rebaptization And that as gold is good which is the Similitude used by (p) Contra Cresc lib. 1. cap. 21. S. Augustine yet not to be sought in company of theeves so though Baptism be good yet it must not be sought for in the Conventicles of Donatists But you free us from damnable heresie and yeeld 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 seek salvation among us You had good reason to conceal S. Augustines answer to the Donatists 10. You frame another argument in our behalf and make us speak thus If Protestants believe the (q) Pag. 79. Religion of Catholiques to be a safe way to Heaven why do they not follow it which wise argument of your own you answer at large and confirme your answer by this instance The Jesuits and Dominicans hold different Opinions touching Predetermination and the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Yet so that the Jesuit holds the Dominicans way safe that is his error not damnable and the Dominicans hold the same of the Jesuits Yet neither of them with good consequence can press the other to believe his opinion because by his own confession it is no damnable error 11. But what Catholique maketh such a wise demand as you put into our mouths If our Religion be a safe way to heaven that is not damnable why do you not follow it As if every thing that is good must be of necessity embraced 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 embrace it And yet further thus Among different Religons and contrary wayes to heaven one only can be safe But
forcible from the Donatists against the Catholiques than from Papists against Protestants in regard Protestants grant Papists no more hope of salvation than Papists grant Protestants whereas the Donatists excluded absolutely all but their own Part from hope of Salvation so farre as to acount them no Christians that were not of it the Catholiques mean while accounting them Brethren and freeing those among them from the imputation of Heresie who being in error quaerebant cautâ sollicitudine veritatem corrigi parati cùm invenerint 23. Whereas you say That the Argument for the certainty of their Baptism because it was confessed good by Catholiques whereas the Baptism 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 we confess there is no damnable error in the Doctrin or practice of the Roman Church I Ans No we confess no such matter and though you say so a hundred times no repetition will make it true We profess plainly that many damnable errors plainly repugnant to the precepts of Christ both Ceremonial and Moral more plainly than 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 remains that as good an Answer as the Catholiques made touching the certainty of their Baptism 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 affirm 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 heresie 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 Schismatical You see what difficulties you run 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 confess that your Doctrin contains no damnable error and that yours is so certainly a true Church that unless yours be true we cannot pretend any I answer there is in this neither truth nor modesty to outface us that we cannot but confess what indeed we cannot but deny For my part if I were upon the rack I perswade my self I should not confess the one nor the other 26 Whereas again presently you add that D. Potter grants we should be guilty of Schism if we did cut off your Church from the body of Christ 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 Schism and from hence you sophistically inferre that he must grant If we did so we were Schismatiques and then make your Reader believe that this is D. Potter's confession it being indeed your own collection For as every one that is not a Papist is not a Jesuit and yet not every one that is a Papist is a Jesuit As whosoever comes not into England comes not to London and yet many may come into 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 Schism and yet they that do 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 Saint Austine there to read it as if every one carried with him a Librarie or were able to examine the places in Saint Austine 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 as yours and therefore yours could not be good Now to this purpose as the concealing the answer was no way advantageous so to produce it was not necessary and therefore he did you more service then he was bound to in referring you to St. Austin for an answer to it Whereas you say he had reason to conceal it because it makes directly against himself 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 Saint Austin saies that Catholiques approve the Doctrin of Donatists but abhorre their Heresie of Re-baptization so we say that we approve those fundamental and simple necessary Truths which you retain by which some good souls 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 Baptism good but not to be sought for in the Conventicles of Donatists so say we that the Truths you retain are good and as we hope sufficient to bring good ignorant souls among you to salvation yet are not to be sought for in the Conventicles 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 Salvation which stone here again you stumble at neither he nor any other Protestant is guilty of it and therefore you must confess that this very answer will serve Protestants against this charm of Papists as well as Saint Austin against the Donatists and that indeed it was not Doctor Potter but You that without a Sarcasm had reason to conceal it 28. The last piece of D. Potter's 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 do 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 and therefore scoffe at it and call it an argument of his own a wife argument a wise demand and then aske of him what he thinks of it being fram'd thus Our Religion is safe even by your confession and therefore you ought to grant that aâ— may embrace it And yet farther thus Among different Religions one only can be safe But yours by our own confession is safe whereas you hold that in ours there is no hope of salvation thâ—refore we ought to embrace yours Ans I have advised with him and am to tell you from him that he thinks reasonable