Deum Where himselfe also makes an exact Catalogue of all the heresies which had sprung untill his time and where by the way I must needs observe in a word that hee recounts divers heresies which are held by the Protestant Church at this day and particularly that of denying prayers and sacriâ—ices for the dead and then hee concludes in the end that whosoever should hold any one of them were no Christian Catholick But here I must challenge this Champion first that hee deales not fairely with us in putting in these words In disobedience to the Church For let the world know that this is not our holding That a different opinion being held in a purposâ—d disobedience to the Church is safe or compâ—tible with unity of charity but that some different opinions in points of doctrine by darknesse of understanding or weaknesse of faith not apprehended or beleâ—ved yet not without a purposed disobedience to the Church may be compatible with unity and salvation Secondly if it were true which hee saith that unity were broken by the obstinate beliefe of any one doctrine joyned with disobedience to the Church how doth not this make against Rome which maintaineth her universall Supremacy and other errors directly against the Canons of the Church Thirdly wee deny Rome to bee that Church which the Fathers speake of Fourthly this Authors allegations make directly against his owne end and overthrow the authority of Rome which hee goes about to establish For let him speake upon his conscience and reputation Were all those heresies mentioned by Epiphanius and Augustine adjudged and condemned for heresies by the Church of Rome If not then it seemes there may bee hereticks without any judgement of the Church of Rome and there may be hereticks that hold some errors not adjudged heresies by the Church of Rome But if so then what is become of this Authors heresie described to be the obstinate beliefe of any one doctrine in disobedience to the Church the Church in the Authors sense being no other then the Church of Rome How was this Church disobeyed in those things which shee had not decreed and even his particulars of prayers and sacrifices for the dead Had the Church of Rome adjudged these at this time to bee points of faith Hee cannot say it How plaine deceit then is this to seeme to prove these to bee heresies because held in a disobedience to the Church when the Church in his Romish sense had not decreed the doctrines to bee beleeved which are contrary to these supposed heresies Let us now come to his particular citations and see yet more particularly how they make not against us but mostly against himselfe Hee begins with Saint Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 3. The Church having received this word preached and this faith as was shewed before and having spread the same over the whole world doth diligently preserve it as inhabiting one house and doth likewise beleeve those things which are taught thereby as having one soule and one heart and in the same conformity shee preaches and teaches and delivers it as possessing but one moâ—th For though there bee in the world different expressions and tongues yet the vertue and power of Tradition is but one and the same And neither those Churches which are found in Germany nor those others in Spaine nor those in France nor they which are in the Easterne parts nor they which are in Egypt nor they which are in Lybia nor they which are in the middle parts of the world doe beleeve or make tradition of doctrine any otherwise in one place then they doe in another but as that creature of God the Sunne is one and the same in the whole world so is the preaching if the Truth And those Prelates of Churches who have most power and grace of speech will deliver no other things but these for no man is above his Master neither will such an one as hath meaner Talents in speech make this doctrine and Tradition lesse but since Faith is but one and the same neither doth hee inlarge it who is able to speak much of it nor that other diminish it who speakes lesse I answer that this place is produced improperly in regard of the Point deceitfully in regard of the Reader For Irenaeus in the second Chapter next preceding had set downe a forme of Faith and a summe of chiefe Articles agreeable to our Creed And then in the third whence this allegation is taken hee saith that the Church having received this faith doth uniformly preach it and with one Mouth through all nations neither doth the more learned increase it nor the lesse learned diminish it Now this being spoken of the principall points of faith â—oth rather prove our unity in fundamentalls but not prove our Champions entire unity in inferiour points therefore it comes not home to the Authors marke but indeed he goes about to deceive the Reader when he brings it in as a proofe of that which it proves not Secondly this place makes mightily against the Papacy and that Confederacy for in the faith which Irenaeus sets downe in the foregoing chapter there is not one Article concerning the Popes Supremacy nor worshiping Images nor of praying in an unknowne tongue c. These therefore being now decreed by the Pope are inlargements of faith wherefore the Popes that thus inlarge the faith are by Irenaeus censured not to bee these Prelates of Churches who have most power and grace of speech yea not so good as the others of lesse grace but withall hee censureth them that they are above their master and their master being Christ it fits right with the saying of Paul That hee sits as God and exalts himselfe above all that is called God Hee comes next to Tertullian Tertullian shewes plainly that whosoever denyes any one doctrine of the Church rejects all for thus hee saith upon occasion Valentinus approveth some things of the Law and the Prophets some things hee disallowes that is hee disallowes all whiles he approves some The Author here also imposeth upon his Reader if wee may beleeve Tertullians learned but Romish Adnotator Pamelius For not to insist on this that the words are Omnia improbat dum quaedam reprobat he disallowes all whiles hee refuseth some from Pamelius we learne that these words are not spoken of all points of faith proposed by the Church much lesse if the Church bee taken for the Papacy but of the bookes of the Law and the Prophets which Protestants do by no meanes reject For this is Pamelius his sentence immediatly after these words Quod usque adâ—o verum agnoverunt alii scriptores ut disertis verbis scribant inter caeteros Damascenus quod vetus Testamentum reprobaverit This by other writers is said to be so true that they expresly write and Damascen among others that hee refused the old Testament And indeede hee that did deny the old Testament did deny more then one doctrine of
is still busie in bringing in the number of Canonicall Books for fundamentall as before in the Creed when his owne Masters put it not among their Explicites and Fundamentals But yet if the number were on all sides taken for a Fundamentall our Church hath sufficiently expressed her meaning to men whose eyes are single and not troubled with the fiery humour of uncharitablenesse and contention For first for the number of the old they enumerate as himselfe confesseth all the Bookes of the old Testament which they account Canonicall so then if the number of Canonicall Books bee a Fundamentall the Articles have shewed this Fundamentall concerning the old Testament Yet thus hee is not pleased but is still angry with the Articles to his owne hurt and runnes against them with a sword whose point he turns against his owne soule and the head against our Church For hee saith They are rather Iewes then Christians for not admitting the Bookes of Judith the Maccabees c. But the Authour endangereth himselfe in this point to be censured as neither good Jew nor good Christian. For Saint Paul who was an excellent both Jew and Christian saith That whereas great was the preferment of the Jew yet herein it stood chiefly Because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God So that if that was the chiefe preferment of the Jew under the Law and Old Testament that the Oracles of God were committed to them what shall we say of that Christian that takes this chiefe preferment from them and scandalizeth them and others for following them even in that wherein the holy Ghost by Saint Paul giveth them a chiefe preferment Againe if those were the Oracles of God which were committed to the Jewes and these of Iudith and Maccabees were not committed to them by God as his Oracles and accordingly not received by them either these are not Gods Oracles or Saint Pauls word will bee denied that Gods Oracles were committed to the Jewes So that the Authour hath herein good matter not for pennance onely but for true and hearty repentance for shaming the Jewes and us for following them in that very point wherein Saint Paul saith that their preferment or advantage chiefly consisteth Againe the Romists themselves hold the Church of the Jewes to have been the true Church in the time of the Law and the high Priest an unerring head of that Church as our Authour before hath taught us Now is it not against these Romists owne grounds to say That the Church of the Jewes when it was unerring did erre in the number of Canonicall Scriptures a fundamentall of this Authour or else an impertinency Therefore Lorca more warily alloweth though in danger to be censured for a Jew That those Books were anciently given to the Jewes Howsoever if the high Priest had not then the infallibility to discerne Canonicall Scriptures how hath the Pope now that infallibility For our Authour brings in the infallibility of the individuall high Priest to prove as it should seem the present infallibility of the Pope so that the high Priest either had this infallibility and so the Authour is put to shame for shaming the Jews in their discerning and numbering the Canonicall Scriptures or hee had not this infallibility and so he is put to confusion in his proving the Popes infallibility by him that was fallible But hee goes on and talkes of Trifling and not onely talkes of it but doth it They trifle also saith hee when they tell us that they understand those onely Bookes both of the Old and New Testament to be Canonicall of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church For they know as well as wee that the Apocalyps the Epistle of St. James Saint Jude and one of Saint Peters were not acknowledged till proofes were made during the space of three or foure hundred years after Christ our Lord. But if a Romist had written the same words which our Articles do no question he would have found'out some gentle construction to have made it sound and good perchance hee would have said that there was never any generall doubt in the Church and that the universall Church never doubted them For wee know that the most ancient Fathers received them and used testimonies from them Or upon the word Doubt there was no just sound or sufficient doubt of them no doubt that was worth the name of a doubt But indeed this Article as it seemes mainly looking to the Apocryphals of the Old Testament wherein alone stands the doubt and difference of number between us and Rome it might hold it sufficient to use such words as concerned that difference not mentioning or regarding ancient differences in that of the New Testament wherein between us and Rome is present agreement But yet more trifling and frivolous is our Authours inference Thâ—sâ— men have been pleased out of thâ—â—â— great grace to admit them though the Maccabees must be rejected because they speak of prayer for the dead For we or rather the Scripture hath shewed before why the Maccabees are not received as Canonicall because contrary to this Authour but agreeabe to Saint Paul they were not committed to the Jewes as the Oracles of God So we found them left out of the Canon and doe not thrust them out But they are Romists that bring in the Maccabees to be Canonicall to prove prayers for the dead because they have no proofe for them in the Canon If the Canon prove not prayers for the dead being beneficiall to the Papacie the Papacie must make Canon to prove prayers for the dead For surely if Apocrypha had not been made Canon there had been no Canon to prove their Apocryphall prayer for the dead But now concerning the Bookes of the New Testament the Authour hath discovered an Elephant in an Atome Observe saith hee what this booke of Articles saith concerning the Canonicall Bookes of the New Testament it saith onely this All the bookes of the New Testament as they are commonly received wee doe receive and account them for Canonicall But why doe they not particularly enumerate all the bookes which they acknowledge to be of the New Testament as they had done them of the Old A strange wonder and one that deserved observation and an observation that well deserved a question but the question scarce deserves an answer especially seeing the Authour answers himselfe before he makes the question For first who doth not see that in the bookes of the New Testament there being no differences between us and the Romists it was sufficient to say That those are received for Canonicall which are commonly received And secondly this Authour himselfe so farre answers his owne question before he makes it that hee acknowledgeth the Page fore-going That these men have been pleased out of their great grace to admit Saint James Saint Jude c. Yet now he takes a deep exception for not naming St. Iames which is so admitted
owne free wils which they beleeve doe bring the possibilitie of doing Gods will into effect But this is many wayes abominable One abomination it is to pray to God that I may doe his will and yet not beleeve that God worketh the will and the deed for which I pray Another not to pray indeed that Gods will may bee done though Christ hath commanded it but to pray that it may not bee done as well as bee done For if I pray onely to God that hee may meerely leave it to my will whether his will shall bee done or not I doe not pray certainely that his will may bee done but that it may stand in an even ballance whether it shall bee done or not and then it is very possible yea likely as wofull experience hath too often shewed that his Will will not be done But howsoever sure it is to God they cannot pray but which is another abomination must pray to their owne wils that Gods will may bee surely done the certainty of doing Gods will being suspended onely on their owne wils and not depending on Gods effectuall grace How much better doth our Liturgie imitate this patterne of Christ Jesus and fulfill his direction It prayes for the King That he may alway incline to Gods will and walke in his way and for the people That they may leade a godly righteous and sober life that they may in all things obey Gods blessed will that they may ever obey his godly motions in righteousnesse and true holinesse that they may please God both in will and in deede That his grace may prevent and follow us and make us continually to bee given to all good works And indeed these prayers and especially the Lords prayer being so soundly good that the soules of men cannot but approve and use them it doth seeme to evince that those who doe use these prayers though otherwise they seeme to favour this Romish free will yet doe not heartily beleeve that free will which crosseth and denyeth these prayers as on the other side it would bee a mighty accusation if they should so beleeve free will that they could not say the Lords prayer Lastly It takes from God the glory of praise and thanks for our obedience and especially for our differing from others for the free-will-men cannot praise God so well as the Pharisee who yet was not justified for they cannot say Father I thank thee that I am not like other men but they must say Father I thank thee that I was like other men and had the same free will and grace which they had but That I am not like other men I thank my owne free will which by a different use of the same grace wherein by thee I was made like other men hath made mee unlike to them To conclude This opinion of free will as it robs God of his glory so it robs man of his safety for it hangs mans safety upon mans free will God and his grace doe not keepe man but mans free will keepes grace and by grace keepes man grace dependeth on the will whether it shall bee kept it selfe and whether it shall keepe man or lose him But thus the will grace and the man are not safely kept by the power of God unto salvation Man is brought back againe into the state of free will which the old Adam had and lost but with this disadvantage that hee hath now a mighty law in his members rebelling against the law of his minde which the old Adam had not And now shall man with all his imperfections issuing from this body of sinne stand by free will wherewith Adam in his full perfection fell Whosoever thinks so hath need to thinke better of his imperfect selfe then of perfect Adam But for my part I see great cause to bee affraid of that free will which hath undone him Againe Is there no more stabilitie issuing from the second Adam Christ Jesus who is God and man then there would have beene by descent from the first Adam who was only a man Doth Regeneration from Christ give no more stabilitie with his seed then with Generation should have beene communicated to us descending from the old Adam if hee had stood in perfection Yet of Christ that is said which could never bee spoken of Adam nor can bee spoken of free will Hee is that Rock on which the Church being grounded The gates of Hell cannot prevaile against her And of the Seed of God given through this second Adam wee read It is a remaining Seede which keepes us from reigning sin Briefely as wee are borne of promise so God gave to the promised Seed a Land of promise and the bringing that Seed unto the Land of promise is sure to this Seede by the effectuall power of God the Promiser as the promised Seed was surely given by his promise And accordingly for the establishing our hearts wee doe often heare of the faithfulnesse of God who hath promised In God therefore is our safety and not in our owne free will Hee is our Shepheard therefore wee doe not feare his grace keepeth our wils and us and our wils fundamentally and finally keepe not this grace and us And thus Gods glory and mans safety are joyned together by Gods powerfull grace and therefore wee may close up this Point in the words of Saint Paul God shall preserve us unto his heavenly Kingdome to him bee glory for ever Amen Yet may wee add this Lesson as a Corollary from the joynt consideration of Saint Pauls Conversion and Doctrine That they who have felt most the effectuall power of Gods grace in their conversion from the kingdome of Sathan unto God will be most earnest in teaching this grace and in giving glory to God for that effectuall grace by which they have been converted Yea let us hereunto joyne that memorable Caution which may serve for a Load-stone to direct those that sayle in the deepe of this Controversie to the harbour of safety where they would bee That in all doubts and difficulties they incline to that opinion which gives most glory to God For as it hath beene well taught This is the disposition of godly mindes to attribute nothing to themselves but all to the grace of God whence it will come to passe that though a man should give never so much to the grace of God and thereby take away somewhat from the power of Nature and free will hee shall never depart from piety but when something is taken from Grace and given to Nature thence danger may arise Hee goes on So also doe they play at fast and loose when in the sixth Article of holy Scripture they enumerate all those Books of the old Testament which they allow to be Canonicall wherein by the way they are rather Iewes then Christians for not admitting the Books of Judith the Maccabees and divers others in the Canon This Authour
CATHOLICK CHARITIE COMPLAINING AND MAINTAINING That Rome is unchaâ—itable to sundry Eminent parts of the Catholick Church and especially to Protestants and is therefore Uncatholick And so A Romish Book called CHARITIE MISTAKEN though undertaken by a Second is it selfe a Mistaking By F. ROUS OPTATUS Lib. 2. Quia noluerunt fratres agnoscere nullam habuerunt charitatem LONDON Printed by R. Young for Iohn Bartlet at the signe of the gilt Cup neer S. Austins gate 1641. REcensui Librum hunc cui Titulus CATHOLICK CHARITY in quo nihil reperio fidei orthodoxae aut bonis moribus contrarium quo minus summâ cum utilitate Typis mandetur JOH HANSLEY R. P. Episc. Lond. Capel Domest Decemb. 2. 1640. The Publisher to the READER IT might well have beene wished that the growth of Romish errours and superstitions the complaint of this time had not made this Worke too seasonable True it is though it doe but now see the light yet it came to the birth before any other Answer of Charity Mistaken was knowne to the Authour it came indeed to the birth but there was no strength to deliver the judgement of those times not giving way to any other besides those whose Answers have beene already made publick But though they have run before like Cushi this like Ahimaaz yet perchance not altogether without tidings may run after and with Ahimaaz it may make the better speede because with him it goes the way of the Plaine it goes a plaine way speaking plainely the Protestant Shiboleth and it useth plainnesse and evidence of speech in which way it is likely to meet with most Readers Neither doth it come altogether without tidings for it brings with it the tidings of Truth and Love and by both a remedy against error and uncharitablenesse And as it is a worke of charity so is it sutably fitted with charitable expressions for it doth not take up those sharpe arrowes which in these Concertations too often are shot at mens persons besides the Marke of the Matter True it is that where the Writer doth put his faults into the matter of his Booke and doth publish them of purpose to have them seene and by the sight of them to make others faulty there it will bee a duty of obedience as well as of necessary providence for the Readers safety to take notice of them Controversies certainely looke like breaches of love and therefore the Authour hath not been much in love with them But if love will bee lost except it be kept by a Controversie there the Controversie that keepes it is a worke of love To strive against uncharitablenesse that it may be removed and charity put in the roome of it is an act of charity and this charity is the businesse of this work The Reader may also take notice that divers passages not insisted on by the other are here examined because this worke surveyeth the whole Booke which it answers more particularly then the other There hath indeed come forth a Reply in defence of Charity Mistaken But both the one and the other turne mainely on these two hinges That there must be an entire unity of faith in all Truths revealed by God and proposed by the Church And That if unity were to be held by the faith of Fundamentals a perfect and uniforme List should be given of those Fundamentals Now these two hinges being taken off in this Book I hope it may give a fall to the maine matter of them both And whereas the Replyer strives to divide our unity by this Engine That some Protestants directly wittingly and willingly dis-beleeve what others do beleeve to bee testified by the Word of God and herein is no difference between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall It is rejoyned for a defence against this Engine of division That if herein be no difference betweene the one and the other in Fundamentals there is no proofe that they are not united members in the body of Christ For hee that wittingly and willingly dis-beleeves that which the other beleeves to bee testified by the Word of God may know as the terme wittingly seems to import that the point dis-beleeved is not testified by the Word of God and so hee may bee safe and is still one with Christ and his Members Againe the other who beleeves it to bee testified by the Word of God may bee deceived yet the point not being fundamentall his errour may not divide him from the other which is a member of Christ. Indeed if a Protestant should know a point to be testified by the Word of God and then dis-beleeve it that might prove him not to be in the Body of Christ but first This would bring him within the difference of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals contrary to the Replyers Affirmation for it is a maine Fundamentall to beleeve God whom that man beleeves not who wittingly and willingly denyes the Word of God And secondly It is meerly inconsistent and incompossible That hee who beleeves Fundamentals should wittingly and willingly dis-beleeve what hee knows the God of Truth hath spoken And if out of weaknesse errour and ignorance hee doth not beleeve that God hath spoken it this ignorance if it be not in Fundamentals doth not inforce a disunion from other Members of the Body of Christ. Thus the Replyers objected Not-beleeving either falls under Fundamentals and then his case is not rightly put or else it falls not under Fundamentals and then it doth not conclude a disunion betweene Protestants This having received my selfe I impart to the Reader with a Prayer that in reading this Worke hee may bee enlightned with that Spirit of Truth which alone can kindly discover both the Mystery of godliness and the Mystery of iniquity and that the same Spirit may hold him in the one and keep him from the other CATHOLICK CHARITIE CHAP. I. Of Christian Love and Peace SECT I. Concerning the Excellency Necessity and other motives of Christian Love with an exhortation to the imbracing of it THE Spouse of Christ Jesus when shee shines in Love shee is amiable in Beauty precious in the eye of her Husband powerfull with God her Father prosperous in her owne spirituall health and vigour and prepared for her consummate marriage in celestiall glory Her husband is God and God is love and God cannot but love that love which is like himselfe And that hee may love his Spouse for her love when shee becomes one Spirit with him by this unity of Spirit hee gives her an uniformity of love the oyntment of Christ Jesus the Head floweth down into all his members and breatheth love into them and as farre as his life goes so far goeth his love therefore no love no life in Christ Jesus Agreeably the beloved Disciple and an especiall Teacher of love having shewed that the new-birth brings love with life he fitly addeth Hee that loveth not abideth in death No wonder then if the great Master and Lover of this Disciple
whereof this wretched man discoursed amply learnedly and too subtly against himselfe Hee said that hee did acknowledge the severity of Gods judgement who had chosen him to make him a spectacle rather then any other and to admonish all by one mans mouth to abstaine from all impiety confessing that there was no reproach nor punishment which hee had not deserved by reason of his foule offence After hee had discoursed gravely of the Divine Justice hee said That they should not account strange this his speech for that oftentimes God doth wrest out of the mouth of Reprobates most assured testimonies of his Majestie his Justice and his fearefull Vengeance as wee see in Iudas confessing his owne sin and justifying his Master Many testimonies of Scripture being alledged to divert him from this fearfull apprehension and being exhorted to receive into his heart a hope and a trust of salvation by Iesus Christ hee said even in that whereby you doe exhort mee to gather some hope I see all meanes of health and pardon taken from mee For if the Testimonies of the holy Scripture have any authority as they have doe you thinke that Iesus Christ said in vaine that he which renounceth him before men hee will renounce him before his heavenly Father Doe you not see that this concerns mee and that it is as it were particularly verified in my person What shall become of him whom the Sonne hath disavowed before his Father when as you say wee must hope for no salvation but in Iesus Christ It cannot bee beleeved with what gravity and vehemency his words were delivered neither was there ever man heard pleading better for himselfe then Spira against himselfe Hee said That God did set the precious bloud of Iesus Christ and the dignity of his obedience as an high and strong Rampart that sinners repenting them might not bee drowned with the overflowing of their sinnes and offences As for himselfe seeing hee had renounced our Saviour Iesus Christ hee had as one should say overthrown this strong Rampart with his owne hands so as the deluge of the waters of vengeance had covered and swallowed up his soule One of his most familiars said unto him that his great torment proceeded from abundance of Melancholy which troubled his braine Spira remembring that hee had many times refuted this opinion said You may thinke what you please but God in truth hath troubled my spirit seeing it is impossible for me to have any hope of salvation Thus hee continued and withall refused to eate any more meate and so being carried from Padua to his owne house in this despaire hee died CHAP. V. Against the Cavaliers third Chapter First it is proved That although unitie bee necessary in the true Church yet doth not this discharge the Papists from uncharitablenesse in damning Protestants SECT I. Wherein is declared first the weakenesse of his Grounds and Deductions Secondly what kinde of unity is required in the Church WEe are past the Champions unproved and indeede disproved improbability of this assertion That Rome wants charity in casting damnation upon Protestants Now we are com to his untruth It is untrue saith hee that Romists want charity in thus damning Protestants And by what reason doth hee prove it to bee untrue Because there is but one Church a strange kinde of reasoning that this should bee an untruth that Rome is uncharitable in damning Protestants because there is but one Church when even hence appeares the truth of her uncharitablenesse For if there be but one Church and Protestants be members of this one Church how is it not most true that it is uncharitable to damne the true members of this one Church Now that Protestants are members of this one Church is a truth already proved which nothing that this Author saith in this booke or can say will ever disprove but much rather his grounds or rules by which hee would oppugne our truth doe prove it and make against himselfe and his untruth His grounds are these There is but one Church and one Religion out of which there is no salvation Secondly the unity of the members of this Church is broken betweene Papists and Protestants Thirdly that both Papists and Protestants are not saveable in their severall Religions But what doth all this prove but that Protestants first may bee members of the true Church with whom secondly Papists doe breake unity therefore thirdly Papists are not saveable His owne proofes make not against us but make against him and his owne fellowes But the inference sowed hereunto is most miserable That no one is to be blamed if conceiving his owne to bee the onely true Religion hee declares the dangerous estate wherein hee takes any other man to bee who communicates and agrees not with him but rather that hee is obliged to let him know it An inconsequent untruth except consequent because deduced from untruths and so it must either accuse the premisses or it selfe Doth the Author himselfe beleeve what hee saith or can it come into his judgement that if two hold two contrary opinions whereof one is true and the other false that he which holds the false is not to be blamed if he declare to the other that the truth is falsehood and thereupon tell him that hee is in danger to be damned by beleeving the truth so to terrifie him out of the truth into his owne falsehood If there be no fault in this then how can any man blame a Turk for telling a Christian that hee cannot well bee saved except he turne Turke Surely whatsoever this Cavalier may thinke of this kinde of doctrine I beleeve that if the same were maintained in false titles to a Crown the Law would call it treason For if a Subject conceiving his false title to bee good should tell his Prince that he were an Usurper were not such a Subject to be blamed Surely whatsoever a Romist may thinke of such a one I doubt not but the Law would thinke him worthy of a capitall Sentence And it is likely the abbetters of him by such doctrines would not bee freed from blame and danger But if this Champion had sought advice his own Doctors could have holpen him out of his error For they can tell him that an erroneous conscience doth not binde to the doing of that which it erroneously thinkes should be done the proper Guide of our Actions should be Light and Knowledge not darknesse and error Neither is the Will bound to obey other then the rectified Understanding And therefore if the conscience being deceived do prescribe that to be done which is unlawfull the true and onely remedy is to cleere the conscience from the errors not to follow it in errors For this were to double the fault which before was single for the errour in the conscience was one and now the following of that errour is another And if the Cavalier know it not there is also a Romish Doctor that can tell him a cause
the Pope and in that regard not under the same prelates they may bee of a very good religion and of the one saved Church For so are the Greek Armenian and Abissine Christians A second untruth is his inference upon a catalogue of differences For saith hee wee differ in prime points c. Hereupon his looke tells us he would inferre that we are in some danger for differing in these points But I referre him for the proofe of our safety to one that sheweth himselfe a far truer Roman Catholick then this Cavalier whose businesse is cleane contrary to this Cavaliers even to prove that Protestants are not damnable nor of a different Church for their differences from Romish Catholickes And untill the Cavalier have refuted his Arguments I shall hold these his objections of differences to bee but dead words already vanquished and slaine And let him take this with him as a note that the title of the first chapter of that Booke is the plaine affirmative whereof the title of this chapter is theâ— Negative The truth is the points which this Champion nameth are Popish errours and bring the danger on their side and wee are the more safe for differing from them and they the more unsafe for differing from us and withall unsafe againe for uncharitable censuring us And indeede their danger is so great in the point of justification one of these prime points and making their workes their Saviours that they who hold this errour and thereby withdraw their trust from Christ Iesus if they be in that which is called the Church they are but in it as chaffe in the Barne mixt with the corne but to bee blowne away with the fanne into an unquencheable fire And whereas hee expresseth this difference thus We differ about the justification of soules and the value which the death and grace of Christ our Lord hath imparted to the works of the Children of God Hee is here againe chargeable with an untrue and an unsound expression For wee differ from right Papists about the disvalue and unworthinesse which our persons and our corruptions impart to the works which have otherwise some goodnesse in them as they come from the grace of Christ so that in regard of the imperfection which they have from our corruption wee dare not stand upon them before the Justice and Judgement of God for our justification But we think it most safe to set betweene Gods Justice and our soules a perfect Righteousnesse even the Righteousnesse of Christ Jesus our Head For Christ is the end of the Law and a true commensurate Satisfier of the Divine Justice for every one that beleeveth And in regard of our owne workes wee may say with one that had more good works and works more good then the best of the Romists Enter not into judgement with thy servant O Lord for no flesh is righteous in thy sight this Saint was Gods servant yet he desired that God would not enter into judgement with him These then that will have God to enter in judgement with them it is very likely they are not the servants of God but whatsoever they be they may be sure by this Text they shall not be justified in his sight He comes to a third point and therein hee hath also many and manifest untruths His point is this That it is the Pride of the man in his disobedience to the Church and not the importance or weight of the doctrine that makes the Heresie And this he would prove because Saint Augustine accounts some things heresies which are points of small importance and because the Donatists are accounted hereticks for that which in S. Cyprian was not heresie and againe because Saint Cyprian saith nothing to the Cavaliers purpose that the doctrine of Novatianus was not worth the inquiring because he was not of the Church Here are divers untruths met together a first is the Position it selfe That it is Pride and Disobedience to the Church that makes the heresie A second that if it were disobedience to the Church yet it is not disobedience to the Cavaliers Church the Pope and his Adherents Thirdly It is not true that those places and proofes produced by him doe prove his point of Pride to bee heresie But before I come to a more exact consideration of these particulars I cannot but deliver him backe againe his scornefull objection which hee threw at us in passing to this point as nothing accusing us but him that gave it without reason That the Protestants have taken upon themselves to bee the Reformers of the world without ordinary Mission or Miracles That our Ministers have not ordinary Mission is an untruth so strongly refuted that there needs a great deale of impudence or ignorance to affirme it without new and more proofe And for Miracles to make good a Reformation I never heard that the very Priests of Baal did require them of Iehu nor the idolatrous Jewes of Hezekiah and Iosiah And indeed they might well think there should bee no absolute need of new Miracles to them that brought in no new Law but reformed the Church according to the old which at first was delivered as it were in a cloud of Miracles Neither is it necessary that our Reformation not bringing in a new Gospel but reforming according to the Gospel once delivered to the Saints and at first confirmed by signes should be now again confirmed by Miracles But we leave Romish Miracles to bee the marks of the Man of sinne and his deformation of the Church whose comming must bee with signes and lying wonders and accordingly wee think when Lipsius wrote a Booke of the wonders of Montague and Hall hee did by that Booke prove That the Pope is Antichrist But now to come to his false Position That it is pride and disobedience to the Church that makes the heresie I must tell him that hee hath divers of his owne Romish Doctors and those not ignoble that hold the contrary and therefore hee must not blame his Reader if hee beleeve them before a Cavalier for some hold That not the pride of the person makes the heresie but that an heresie may properly bee called any error contrary to faith considered in it selfe without any respect to the deliverer of it And for this opinion are brought forth these great ones Turrecremata Castro Simancas Couarruncas Gabriel Corduba Secondly a Proposition may be hereticall as some Romists say though the contrary hath not beene decided and decreed by the Church Accordingly wee reade againe That those are not onely hereticall assertions which are defined by Counsels or the Pope but many others which is plaine because this Proposition God is not Three and One was hereticall before the condemnation of Arrius The like hee affirms of the heresie of Nestorius yet again to make the matter more plaine hee saith Whatsoever is expressely contained in Scripture so that no obscurity bee in the sense of the words
other that hee erreth in the faith and the other retorts the same against him yea this happeneth not only between two particular Divines but between one Schoole and another And indeede these dissentions even to the imputation of heresie doe shame the Pope this infallible judge of controversies for not resolving them and doe almost plainly confesse that he mistrusts his owne infallibilitie and that he doubts it is scarce trusted by others for it is likely the feares either that hee shall not rightly resolve or that both sides will not quietly submit but that some of those who have that burning zeale which consumed the Dominican will bee inflamed against him for his resolutions Fourthly even against decision there is opposition and so are they at division and particularly in that great and weightie point of Idolatrie For that which the Romists call the second Councell of Nice and acknowledge to be a lawfull Councell saith plainely of Images thus Illis salutationes honorariam adorationem tribuant non tamen secundum fidem nostram veram Latriam quae solum divinae naturae competit So that Lorca after the producing of divers testimonies of this Councell thus inferreth Vis autem omnium testimoniorum consistit in hoc quod Imaginibus expressè conceditur adoratio expresse etiam eis negatur Latria And soone after Concilium non solum excludit Latriam sed explicat speciem adorationis dicit enim adorandas esse honoraria adoratione sicut Liber Evangeliorum And hereunto agreeth Pamelius speaking of this Councell as hath before beene alledged Yet Latria or divine worship being thus plainly and as Lorca 〈◊〉 expreâ—sly denied to Images by the Câ—unâ—â—ll great and learned Romists plainly say that Latria or divine worship is to be given to Images even the same worship which is due to the patterne So saith â—â—zorius and Bellarmine acknowledgeth that this was the dâ—ctrine of Alexander Aquinas Cajâ—tâ—ne Bonaventure Marsilâ—us Almaine Carthusian Capreolus and others And accordingly wee reade of a Doctor of Sivill questioned of Heresie for agreeing with the councell in denying Latria contrarie to these Doctors Upon that which hath beene said I inferre that our objection of Romish disunions yet stands firme because there are maine disunions objected by us against Rome which this Author hath not touched and so stand still strong against him among which is eminent that incurable difference of headship it selfe betweene the Pope and the Councell to which some adde the fearfull division of the Popedome when in a schisme the Papacy is two or three headed two or three sitting at once as heads of the Church and others adde the division of successive heads the one denying and annulling the acts of the other SECT III. The weaknesse of the Cavaliers answers are manifested First for Romish differences are not onely of such points as are left at liberty by this Church Secondly their pretended religious orders are so many different Sects and Fashions in the Church Thirdly the distinction of explicite and implicite faith doth fortifie the Protestants objections and no way salve them WHereas to our first objection of difference concerning varietie of opinions in some points found in their Books he gives this first answer That wheresoever they finde our Doctors to bee of a contrarie opinion they shall also finde those points in question not to have beene defined by the Church but left at libertie to bee debated and disputed as men see cause This is plainly overthrowne by that which hath been produced in our fourth observation of Romish differences For there wee see a point oppugned and denied by Romish Doctors which hath been defined yea the power of the Councell above the Pope hath beene defined by Councels and is denyed by Romists To which I may adde that the Popes power hath beene bounded within the limits of a Patriarchate by divers Councells which yet Romish Doctors doe not onely dispute against but utterly deny Besides when they object one to another de Fide The meaning of it in plaine English is this They tell their fellowes that they hold a point contrary to the definition or doctrine of the Church And whereas hee speakes of unity by referring themselves to the future definition of the Church this is no answer for the differences of those who do dispute and deny those points which by the Church are already defined for it were absurd to say that they who doe now not submit to the definition of the Church are ready to submit to it hereafter Againe for those points which have not beene defined certaine it is that for the present they are at very hot contention and difference and their resolving to obey the future definition of the Church doth no whit prove their present unity who are presently at division while the Church doth not by defining make unity betweene them Two that have a question and a quarrell upon the question and upon this quarrell kill one another may as well bee said to agree because they both would referre themselves to the next man that comes Which man not yet coming nor reconciling the difference they in the meane time notwithstanding this supposed future agreement doe presently fight and truly kill one another Except by this Popish sleight wee may truly say that these men being at full agreement and unity were divided and upon this division which was indeede an agreement did fight and kill one another True it is that it is the more shame for the Pope who hath knowne these controversies of the Dominicans and others of a long time And for a while as Vasques saith did forbid them but most wisely though not like an infallible Head of unity deferres to resolve them and so to set them at unity but gives them leave still to dispute and differ being affraid perchance on one side to run against the chiefe Disciples of Evangelicall Thomas and on the other side to lose the profit that comes by the many pretious consequences of free-will Besides when they be not agreed which is the Church that hath supreme power to decide controversies whether the Pope be above the Councell or the Councell above the Pope and if the Pope be of one opinion and the Councell of another how doth he that submits himself to the Church by this submission put himselfe into a way of unity or not rather of division And if such a submission make an unity the Protestants are at unity much better then Romists for they submit themselves to the one and undivided word of God truly opened by Apostles and Pastors endued with gifts from on high by the same spirit which endited it and was given of purpose to cause unity of faith And whereas hee gives a second plaister to that first objection of differences of points not defined that they doe not breake unity of peace nor erect Altar against Altar I say this plaister is much shorter then the sore for
another way Here leaving to the Authour his owne terme of railing wherein I wonder hee should delight but that I see elsewhere hee takes pleasure in the mentioning of scurrill and blasphemous Invectives I say that some errors bee not fundamentall which are found in the Fathers and now maintained by Romists yet wee are not disabled by this distinction to reprove Romists for them for wee doe not say in this distinction that no errours should bee reproved but those which are fundamentall for even lesser errours are to bee reprehended but wee say that these errours in lesser points doe not breake the unity which by greater and more fundamentall points is made betweene Christ and his members and betweene the members themselves And secondly wee say that Romists are much more to bee reproved if they hold any errours of the Fathers now in controversie betweene us for these controverted errours have beene now by the Scriptures more evidently discovered to bee errours and it is a thing farre more worthy of blame if a man should runne into a ditch by day then if he should stumble into it by night But whatsoever exactnesse this Authour may require or imagine in this distinction this exactnesse being granted it will never make it to appeare that wee differ from the unanimous beliefe of the Fathers in the maine points mentioned in their rules of faith now called Fundamentals And for his Argument concerning the Lutherans it doth not endanger us for if the Lutherans should bee found by this distinction to differ from us in these fundamentall points which should unite them to Christ it is no hurt to us to renounce the communion of those who renounce communion with Christ. And on the other side if by it they bee found to differ from us in points not fundamentall it would bee no danger nor just disreputation to us to avow those points wherein wee differ not to bee fundamentall but wee will much rather disavow the quarrels which are made where there is no fundamentall difference The period which followes as farre as it is a true Narration of our way of making peace by this distinction with the Fathers and the Lutherans is a commendation both of the distinction and our peace-making by it But by the way I deny That Romists have brought us from denying via facti That the Fathers taught the doctrine of Praying to the Saints or for the dead in the sense and manner of Rome for the Fathers did not unanimously teach praying to Saints I am sure Saint Augustine who was above 400. yeers after Christ doth deny Saints to know ordinarily the affaires of the living which happen after their decease And for prayers for the dead in Purgatorie the Cavalier cannot shew a good patterne for more yeares then the former As for the difference in the number of Canonicall Bookes which it seemes this Author is sorrie that it is not avowed to bee fundamentall it is not altogether new but ancient and wee see it at this day in the Syriack and it were pitie to cut off from salvation all the Churches and Fathers which ever differed in this number yea he must damne many Romists if hee will make this difference fundamentall They that beleeve all necessary saving truths though they bee not fully perswaded that just so many Books were wholly indited by some one of the Apostles or Evangelists I know now how this Author may damne them if these saving truths being beleeved doe save them sure I am that in their owne Explicites or points of importance which wee call fundamentall and they say must bee knowne and beleeved under paine of damnation they doe not mention any names much lesse the number of Canonicall Bookes So it seemes by their owne doctrines the names and full number of the bookes of Scripture are none of their owne Explicites and Fundamentals but other points beleeved may serve to save such beleevers And if such may bee saved though they know not the set number of Books why would you have us to breake unitie for a point the not explicite knowing and beleeving whereof in your owne doctrine doth not exclude salvation Hee goes on and objects a second good use that wee make of points fundamentall which is a proofe of the visibility of our Church And true it is That if there have beene still a visible Roman Church which hath held points fundamental until the Reformation begun by the Protestants then is that visibility since that time still continued by us The former we leave to the Romists to prove for their owne sakes and the later we can very easily prove for our selves And whereas hee repeats but confutes not that some of ours have said that there is no necessity that the Church must have been continually visible I tell him that if this were an absurd Doctrine as he terms it they were led to this absurdity with a great shew of reason For not to run out at large into the common place of visibility when Lirinensis saith at the deluge of Arianisme The whole Romane Empire was fundamentally overthrowne and removed And we reade elsewhere the Pope himselfe was turned Hereticke where was the visibility of the Cavaliers Romish Church it selfe But I need not to dwell much on the defence of this doctrine because he only confutes it by the Epithite Absurd and because that which followes next most concernes the present businesse though this also is a rehearsall and not a confutation Some few of them affirme when they are urged by us to shew that visible Church of theirs that theirs and ours doe make but one true Church and so in shewing the visibilitie of ours they doe withall as they say shew their owne to have beene visible And these men tread in this way because they well know that no other Church but ours can indeed be shewed to have beene visible through all ages since Christ our Lord. But I must here deny his repetition if by the word Church he meane the Pope and those that have made him the foundation of their faith for these and ours wee say not to be one Church with us because they have changed the foundation But if you meane those that by beleeving fundamentalls have fastned their faith on Christ the true foundation wee allow That our Church hath beene one with them and hath been visible in their visibilitie yet avoyding this That hee can ever prove that other Churches have not beene as truly and continually visible as Rome for it will still trouble the Author to shew that the Churches of Greece and Africk have bin lesse truly visible then Rome since the Primitive times of their first conversion And now this Authoâ— being past our use of fundamentalls for visibility yet walkes on though beyond his right businesse but hee that is out of the way in his maine matter of making division to excuse Romish uncharitablenesse may well walke into by-wayes in his prosecution
many whatsoever this Authour saith have not deprived themselves voluntarily of marriage but have taken it upon them as a yoke and burden which neither they nor their Predecessors were able to beare many sinking under it unto the very pit of Hell And let them labour with their wits and pennes so much as they can they will never by reason nor by the lives of their Priests disprove Christs truth That all men cannot receive it nor prove their owne untruth That all men can receive it And surely the Fornications Adulteries Murders and pollutions that have issued from this Law of Coelibate I doubt not cry aloud to heaven against Rome as once against Sodome for that sore to which it is condemned Hee adds further In like manner Saint Peter saith That Saint Paul in his Epistles had written certaine things which were hard to bee understood and which the unlearned and unstable did pervert to their destruction Saint Augustine declares upon this place that the places misunderstood concerned the doctrine of Iustification which some misconceived to bee by faith alone by occasion of what Saint Paul had writ to the Romanes and of purpose to countermine that errour hee saith that Saint James wrote his Epistle and proved therein that good works were absolutely necessary to the Act of Iustification Hereupon wee may observe two things the one That an errour in this point alone is by the judgement of Saint Peter to worke their destruction who imbrace it And the other That the Apostles Creede which speakes no one word thereof is no good Rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith To this I answer First That this Authour goes on still upon a false ground as if wee said that all errours in faith that may damne men were fundamentall and expressely against some Article of the Creede Whereas wee have often affirmed That any errour though not fundamentall may damne men that by a lively faith hold not rightly the fundamentals and so are without Christ. And it seemes that these men were not well grounded and founded by fundamentals in Christ Jesus whom Saint Peter calls unlearned and unstable and their errour the errour of the wicked A generation of vipers turne wholesome food into poyson and abuse Scriptures to their owne condemnation But secondly That faith doth not justifie but that good workes are absolutely necessarie to the Act of Iustification is most untrue and against Saint Augustine himselfe Untrue for a man is justified by faith in Christ and not by his owne merits which in your language are good workes as divers of your owne Authours affirme And a man in the instant of his Justification may dye before he hath had time to do good works and yet his Justification may be good And it is against Saint Austin even in the same place whence the former saying of Saint Peter is taken where you may find that commonly knowne sentence of his Opera sequuntur justificatum non praecedunt justificandum Good works follow justification and doe not goe before it So that whiles this Authour observes two things hee gives more then two scandalls to his Reader For first hee chargeth falsly not Saint Austin onely but Saint Iames with holding this errour That good workes were absolutely necessary to the act of justification And then secondly he will make him to say that the not holding of this errour is an errour which may worke their destruction that embrace it Yea thirdly that the Apostles Creed is no good rule to let us know all the fundamentall points of faith because it speakes no one word to teach us that the Cavaliers errour is a fundamentall point of faith Lastly his owne Doctors doe bring into their Explicites our faith in Christs passion resurrection for justification but not this his Article That good workes are absolutely necessary to the act of justification And if they doe not why doth hee require it of us in our fundamentalls SECT II. Wherein his Exceptions against the 39. Articles of Religion established in this Church are answered BUt having quarrelled in vaine with the Creed to prove the insufficiency of it for fundamentalls now hee comes to the Articles where he thus begins Others say that the Booke of the 39. Articles declares all the fundamentall points of Faith according to the Doctrine of the Church of England but this also is most absurdly affirmed For as it is true that they declare in some confused manner which yet indeed is extremely confused what the Church of England in most things beleeves so it is true that they are very carefull that they bee not too clearly understood And therefore in many Controversies whereof that Book speakes it comes not at all to the main difficulty of the question between them and us and especially in those of the Church and Free-will While the Authour speaks of a confused manner and which is extremely confused his words do returne upon himselfe and his owne discourse For that he may make his discourse confused it seemes hee makes use of this doubtfull word Declare For if wee say That the Booke of Articles declares our fundamentalls of faith wee doe not say it declares all the knots of questions which are between us and the Romists For it is well knowne there are divers controversies between us and the Romists which are not of fundamentalls And neither the Fathers in their rules of Faith neither Romists in their Explicites doe declare the knots of questions which may arise even concerning fundamentalls themselves if the fundamentalls be so expressed that their true and saving sense may bee received and beleeved by the working of that Spirit which makes Christs sheep to hear Christs voice They that thus beleeve shall bee saved though they know not all the knots which cunning and erring men doe make They that write rules of Faith Explicites and Fundamentalls doe not in the same undertake to write all knots of controversies which concerne them And the Cavalier doth not find them in his owne Doctors among their Explicites wherefore the answer which he makes for them let him take for us Secondly for his particulars of the Church and Free-will First for the Church Doth our Church hold that the visibility and inerrability of the Church are fundamentalls And if shee doe not how can this Authour accuse her for not shewing fundamentalls because she shewes not those points which she doth not hold to be fundamentall The Church is not the foundation of the Church but she her selfe is built on that onely foundation Christ Jesus And even your owne men are not agreed about making the Article of the Church one of the Explicites or at least agree not in declaring these points of controversies concerning her to be explicitely beleeved And for Free-will I might aske first Doth this Authour find in any of his Doctors this knot of Free-will for an Explicite But secondly Doth the Councell of
that hee himselfe can by name say that we admit him So it seems wee had no great depth in hiding the name of Saint Iames which our Authour as shallow as his pen runs did so easily find But I confesse I am sorry both for him and my selfe for him that hee is troubled with working such Cob webs and for my selfe that I have the labour of sweeping them away Yet will hee needs goe on in such industrious vanities But abstracting from all these insincerities wherewith that booke of Articles is full fraught they doe not so much as say that the Articles of Doctrine which they deliver are fundamentall either all or halfe or any one thereof or that they are necessarily to be beleeved by them or the contrary damnable if it be beleeved by us But they are glad to walk in a cloud for the reasons which have been already toucht Our Author commends the booke of Articles while he calls the Insincerities of it These Insincerities that is these which before have been shewed to be invisible and no Insincerities Insincerities only in the eye of the Author which did cast the shape of them on the booke when he read it But saith he They shew not which are fundamentall and which are not Neither did they ever promise you that they would do so The fundamentalls are said to be there but no man said for ought I know that there it was shewed which are fundamentalls and which are not Your selves hold points of importance which are more fundamentall and to bee explicitely knowne and doth every Romish Councell tell you which are these points and which are not And if it doth not why doe you demand it of our Church in her Synod more then of your own Or if you can excuse your own why doe you quarrell with ours It was not the intended much lesse promised businesse of our Church there to distinguish fundamentalls from superedifications but to set downe both fundamentalls and superedifications And these being taught to her children the Spirit of Christ the foundation will discover the fundamentalls to his members and thereby settle them on Christ and further build them up by the superedifications according to their appointed measure And I have before shewed how our fundamentalls may bee discerned though I may say somewhat like to that of our Saviour to the Jewes Why of your selves discern ye not that which is right and rightly fundamentall For if you know how to find out these grounds of Christianity which must bee explicitely knowne which your selves acknowledge to be more fundamentall you may easily find out our fundamentalls so that all this is but an empty out-cry to affright the Reader with noise without reason thus to call for a designment of fundamentalls where none was undertaken and where in like case your selves do it not and to quarrell with fundamentalls which your self and yours do acknowledge Yet when Romists have agreed of the set number themselves let them send to us their Catalogue defined by a Synod and it may be we may deale with them upon exchange The Cavalier goes on Master Rogers indeed in the Analysis which hee makes of those nine and thirty Articles speakes loud enough by way of taxing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as being contrary to that of the Church of England and hee gives it 〈◊〉 many ill names as his impure spirit can devise and affirmes among other things that many Papists and namely the Franciscans blush not to affirme that S. Francis is the holy Ghost and that Christ is the Saviour of men but one mother Jane is the Saviour of women a most execrable aspersion of Postellius the Iesuite with a great deale of such base trash as this And yet his Booke is declared to have beene perused and by the lawfull Authoritie of the Church of England permitted to be publick But yet even Master Rogers himselfe is not so valiant as to tell us in particular which point of their doctrine is fundamentall to salvation and which is not True it is that Master Rogers doth very clearely and audibly speake against and condemn divers errours of the Church of Rome as being not onely contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England but to the Word of God with which commonly he confronts the errours which hee brings forth to judgement And among them hee sheweth some errours of a high nature which make Saviours of Merits and Masses and Popish Pardons yea which carry the faith of the soule from God unto man the Pope and his Councels And for ought I see hee doth not give worse names then the purest and holiest Spirit gives to the Pope who calleth him the Man of sinne and sonne of perdition c. And the impurity which this Authour at his owne costs and upon his owne word layes on him Mr Rogers layes on Rome by proofes and allegations as in divers places so particularly in the nineteenth Article Propos. 7. whereof the Title is this That the Church of Rome most shamefully hath erred in life ceremonies and matters of faith But for that to which this Authours spirit gives the ill name of base trash it is brought in as the filth of his owne Associates and testified by other Writers and therefore the basenesse of it most justly should light on them that are the first Authours of it Neither is it strange amongst Papists to make creatures to share salvation with our Saviour the hymnes concerning the milke of the blessed Virgin the bloud of Thomas the vertue of the woodden Crosse singing it aloud in the ears of the world Filthinesse and basenesse most abominable and that deserves to bee swept out of the Church with detestation and to bee carried out as the Filthinesse out of the holy Place in the Reformation of Hezekiah And why in an equall judgement should not Master Rogers his Books much rather be permitted to bee publick for naming such filthinesse with detestation then Rome allowed to bee Catholick though using such filthinesse with practicall approbation Lastly The want of valour in Master Rogers to tell us which point of our doctrine is fundamentall and which is not I thinke is no just accusation because for ought I know hee did not undertake this as his businesse neither had any Romish Cavalier yet challenged him upon this quarrell SECT III. Wherein is discovered the vanity of his boasting That the Protestant Church is unlikely to define which are the fundamentall differences betwixt them and the Papists since they scarce dare avow any difference at all HEe goes on Much lesse is there any appearance that ever the Church of England should doe it since even now wee have seene that it dares not in divers points so much as declare in publick manner that it professes the expresse contrary of what wee held Nay wee are not likely to see the fundamentall points of faith whereof they talke so loud to bee avowed by so much as either
But this Champion while hee liveth will never be able to prove that the Papacy or the Pope and his faction is the Church And yet untill he prove this all his booke is but a carkasse meere dead paper without strength and life In the meane time they are most guilty of detractions slanders and reproaches of the whole Church of God that lay the title of damnable Heretickes or Schismatickes on all the members of the whole Catholick Church that are not subject unto the Man of sinne which sits as God in the Temple of God SECT II. An absurd complement of the Cavaliers attended with three grosse slanders of the Protestants Religion That it is a profession suted to the pleasure of superiours Secondly that the ground of it is sense and appetite Thirdly that they labour more for conformity then unity are all answered ANd now after his bitter pill of dissention to take away the offence of it and that at parting hee may flatter the taste of his Reader with a farewell of sweetnesse he puts this sugar to it All which I have not said either by way of aggravating their sinnes or of alienating men from their persons which I esteeme and love and desire to serve with my whole heart If the Reader will make a due conjunction of this with the former and make a right construction of the whole he may see it runne into this confusednesse The Romish faction must bee rigorous to Protestants and avoid them as Saint John did Cerinthus c. Yea they must fall foule upon them though holding lesser heresies and call them Dogs they must take them for cruell Robbers of the living and the dead for slanderers and detracters and all this is well done and may bee done without being alienated from their persons But doth this Authour thinke that there will bee a separation a falling foule and an accounting of us for Dogs without alienating of affections from our persons Or would hee have such a not alienating from our persons as upon meeting with us to part presently from us or to fall foule upon us and to call us Dogs Surely whatsoever this Authour afterwards speakes of his intent his former words teach such a separation division and hatred that these later words doe not take them away but onely make a faire shew by a mannerly distinction teaching a counterfeit art of falling foule upon men without being alienated from their persons But will any wise man thinke it a charitable speech if Catesby should say unto Faulx Be not alienated from the person of the King nor of his royall issue nor of the Nobility but onely fall foule upon them and blow them up with gun powder As for that following profession towards their persons so diversly expressed which I esteeme and love and desire to serve with my whole heart I acknowledge them to be faire words and of a very good countenance But perchance by some other way there might have been given to a doubtfull Reader more solid satisfaction For a scrupulous Reader may possibly say that these words by Travellers are vented often but as the froth of complement and by Romists are often eluded by a latent equivocation or mentall reservation and may now bee doubted because they doe come in suspiciously with very bad company even as attendants on exhortations and incentives to separate from Protestants to esteeme them as Dogs and to fall foule upon them yea not to hold the Reader in doubt but to let him see there is no soundnesse in your distinction of not hating our persons you have in this booke before taught that hee who doth not obey your Church bee taken for no other then a Pagan or a Publican that is a meere Idolater in his Religion and for a most infamous and base person in his conversation The Reader might have been more soundly satisfied if in stead of all these verbs esteeme love and serve the Cavalier had onely said this single sentence with one adverb I have heartily taken the oath of Allegiance As for his good intent in shewing us what Heresie is and how odious we thank him for it and doe make this use of it That because Heresie is so odious therefore we abhorre the Papacy which hath in it sundry Heresies Idolatries and Doctrines of Divels and is not the Church but a faction in the Church and desire by grace to continue true and lively members of the Church truly Catholick consisting of all Kinreds Tribes and Nations over the face of the whole earth whereof Christ Jesus is the onely and unquestionable Head And if by the Authours mis-perswasions wee should remove from this truly universall Church to become members of the Papacie wee should remove from the Church truely Catholick to a piece and portion in the Church and that not so much a piece of the Church as a faction and disease in the Church whereof the taking away and not the increase is a speciall if not only preservation of the unity and health of the Church truly catholick And towards this let the Pope hear his better even a better Pope then any since him making a question which he cannot well answer but by removing his universall Headship What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head who goest about to subjugate all his members to thee And elsewhere he saith that such a one is the fore-runner of Antichrist But such a one was the Pope within twenty yeers after this was written And if the Pope a thousand yeers since was the fore-runner of Antichrist we may well thinke that Antichrist is not all this time behind his fore-runner And now if the Popes universall Headship bee an Antichristian errour and an errour unanswerable at the last day it were good that the Authour himselfe being moved by his owne motives would withdraw his faith from this Antichristian hereticall Headship and become a right childe of the Church truely Christian and Catholick wherein and not in the Papacy is salvation But how farre from verity this is which followeth I thinke hee cannot but see when he comes to himselfe his words or insimulations are these What indeed doe they but shew by their whole course that they desire and resolve to beleeve and professe according to the occasion and to comply with the superiour powers of this world But doth the Authour beleeve when hee is awaked what hee spake in this dreame Have the Protestants done thus or doth not this Authour know that they have not thus done Whom doe Papists esteeme a superiour Power in the world above the Popes Therefore they have blasphemed him into a King of kings and Lord of lords And did Luther and the first Protestants comply with this superiour Power of the world Hee neglected both the threatnings of Cajetane and the faire promises of Vergerus Againe in Queene Maries dayes did those whom you burned here comply with the superiour powers in point of Religion Yea looke through
in hac Regia urbe conveneruÌ„t à â—30 qui Chalcedone coÌ„veneruÌ„t coÌ„stituta sunt decernimus ut thronus Constantinopolitanus aequalia privilegia cum antiquae Romae throno obtineat in Ecclesiasticis negotiis ut illa emineat Secundus post illam existeâ—â—â— post queÌ„ AlexandrinoruÌ„ metropolis numeretur thronus Deinde Antiochiae post eum Hierosolimitanae civitatis Concil Constant. cap. 36. Patriarcha graeca lingua summus pater interpretatur quia primum i. Apostolorum retinet locum ideo quia summo honore fungitur tali nomine censetur sicut Romanus Antiochenus Alexandrinus Isid. origin lib. 7. cap. 12. And accordingly Gregorie the Great saith to the Patriarchâ— Scio quis sum qui estis Loco enim mihi fratres estis moribus patres Greg. mag Eulogio Ep. Alex. lib. 7. Ep. 30. * Cum post quadâ—ieÌ„nale silentium sine suggillatione censura alterius opinâ—onis disputandi scribendi nobis per summum Pontificem potestas jam facta sit Vas. Epist. dedic primo Tomo praefixa b The fourth Article Whether any of them have published in printed books or openly and in private conference taught any thing contrary to the beliefe of the Catholick Roman Church Answer they have and that every way in printed bookes in written copies or maÌ„uscripts and but most of all in private conference Priest Watson Quodl 2. It followeth that they must either renounce the Catholick Churches authority in crediting these false-hearted seditions and erroneous Jesuits or else renounce the said Jesuiticall doctrine Ib. Art 7. Item the seculars will be when not one Jesuit shall be left alive in the world unlesse they amend their lives and reforme their order but all damned for Hereticks or thrust out of Gods Church as Apostates and Atheists Ibid. a Pa 110. b And lest it should bee thought that saints fall not foule but onely upon such Hereticks as deny the very prime Articles c. Charity mist P. 110. c Quemcunque articulum neget non censetur haereticus donec Ecclesiae doctrinae rebellis contumax sit Lorca in 22. Disp. 3. n. 13. d Consentiunt autem Canonici Colonientes alià s pâ—i Catholici in margine Colonienses Canonici aliqua ex parte consentiunt haereticis Vasques in 12. Disp. 20â— n. 3. e Est insâ—gnis definitio Concilii Tridentini ubi non solum damnatur error Lutheri sed etiam statuitur doctrina de certitudine justificationis nostâ—ae quae opinio quoque Catharino miâ—iâ—iâ—è resellitur Yet a little after hee saith thus of Catharinus Quamvis viro catholico docto pio c. Vasques in 12. Disp. 200. n. 39 40. 1 Sam. 26.9 Eccles. 10.20 Rom. 13.1 2. 1 Pet. 2.13 17. Inst. lib. 4. cap. 13. n. 14. Habitus tonsura modicum conferunt sed mutatio morum integra mortificatio passionum verum faciunt religiosum T. Kemp. de Imit Christ. lib. 1. c. 17 Salvatur secularis per fidem in Christum per eandem Religiosus Non te salvabit quòd Minoritanus 〈◊〉 sed quòd Christianus Ferus in Rom. 3. See the life death of Archbishop Whitgift a Audito nomine transubstaÌ„tiationis taÌ„ta inter recentiores aliquos scholasticos de natura illis exorta fuit coÌ„troversia ut quo magis se ab ea extricare conati fuerint eò majoribus difficultatibus seipsos implicaverint Vasq. in 3. Dis. 181. ubi Andabatarum pugna graphicè depingitur vide etiam Suar. in 3. Tom. 3. Disp. 50. S. 4. Propter hanc difficultatem Theologi in explicaÌ„da hac actione termino ejus valdè divisi sunt prima sententia est c. b See the like in Anti Machavels preface of part 2. c Alii tradunt corpus Christi essentialiter frangi dividi tameÌ„ integruÌ„ incorruptibile existere quod se colligere asserunt ex confessione Berengarii qui coÌ„fessus est coraÌ„ Nicolao papa non soluÌ„ sub sacrameÌ„to sed in veritate manibus SacerdotuÌ„ tractari â—ideliuÌ„ deÌ„tibus atteri â—om 4 D. 12. d Quis ergo dubitat hoâ—uÌ„ Imagines coÌ„secratas vulgus orare publicè colere dum opinio meÌ„s Imperitorum artis coÌ„cinnitate decipitur auri fulgore perstringitur ArgeÌ„ti nitore candore eboris nebetatur Min. Foel in Octavio a Stapleton prâ—fesseur de controverseâ— Ã Doâ—ay un de plus doctes Catholiques de nostre teÌ„ps qui plus exactement à escrit cest argument tientque lâ— S. Esprit est Promis d'assister aux conciles seulemeÌ„t es choses necessaireâ— qu'es autres ils peâ—uent error Ex. pacif chap. 3. a Tertullian de velandis virgin cap. 1. The rule of faith is onely unmoveable And de Praes c. 12. Quaeramus ergò in nostro à nostris de nostro idque duÌ„taxat quod salva regula fidei potest in quaestionem devenire Let us inquire or dispute of that which may come into question without hurting the rule of faith Exod. 14.5 Ex. 18.10 â—â— a Cass. Consult Art 7. Praecipuam causam hujus calamitatis distractionis Ecclesiae illis assignandam qui inani quodam fastu Ecclesiasticae potestatis inflati rectè modestè admonentes superbè fastidiosè contempserunt repulserunt Quare nullam Ecclesiae pacem sperandam puto nisi ab iis initium fiat qui distractionis causam dederunt c. Item in libello de Off. pii viri De correctione admonentes ad curationem exhortantes operamque suam ad id efficiendum offerentes non modo rejiâ—iunt ab Ecclesiae societate depellunt verum etiam multis in locis crudeliter interficiendo censuerunt quae res huic miserabili schismati occasionem dedisle videtur a Iohn 9.35 The word found seems to import that Iesus sought him being cast out and seeking found him So Ferus out of Ezek. 34.16 I will sâ—ck that which was lost b Eos damnare non possum qui in fundamentis Apostolicae doctrinae persistentes studio sincerae Religionis cum aliqua correctionis indigere ab eruditis piis viris admoniti intelligant in aliqua Ecclesiae parte praeunte summâ authoritate accedente coÌ„muni illius Ecclesiae consensu in doctrinae genere aliqua repurgarunt Quis enim membro vitio vertat si reliquo corpore laborante sui curam negligente ipsum sui curam suscipiat Cassander de Offic. pii viri 2. Cor. 6.12.13 2. Cor. 11.2 3. Iste seipsum praedicat non sponsum idcircò pellendus est de interiori thalamo quia Adulter est foris Agab ad Clericos a Quantum ergo ad prima credibilia quae sunt articuli fidei tenetur homo explicitè credere sicut tenetur habere fidem quantum auteÌ„ ad alia credibilia noÌ„ tenetur homo explicitè credere sed solum implicitè vel in praeparatione animi in quantuÌ„ est paratus credere quicquid divina Scriptura continet