salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or who can conjoyn in one brain not crack't these assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselues fundamentall or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgement that her errours are not fundamentall nor damnable And this is no more Charity then you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unlesse you will hold That of contradictory propositions both may be true and yet you doe not judge it damnable to liue in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamentall You ought to know that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is great difference between a speculatiue perswasion and a practicall dictamen of conscience and therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to erre in some doctrines of themselves not damnable yet with that speculatiue judgement they might and ought to haue entertained this practicall dictamen that for points not substantiall to faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in Gods Church You say that hay and stubble and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in points not fundamentall laid on the roofe destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christiā world rather then beare with some errours which did not destroy the foundation of faith And as fo◠others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to haue guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heapes of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receiue the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the faith of the Church with the Doctors And much lesse should they forsake the faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novelists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to haue doubted whether they were certain because your selfe affirm that infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his decrees your Reformers might easily haue found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to mind the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your selfe sets down to free S. Cyprian from Schisme every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietnesse haue rectified their consciences about the pretended errours of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable and modest man dissented from others in his iudgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much lesse any Church for the contrary opinion He believed his own opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and therefore did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others but left them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much lesse any Church S. Cyprian believed his own Opinion to be true but believed not that it was necessary and THEREFORE did not proceed rashly and peremptorily to censure others You belieue the points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamentall or necessary and why doe you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not haue proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only points which were not fundamentall they should haue believed that they might haue been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such points and therefore their doctrines being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not giue sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42 In other places you write so much as may serve us to proue that Luther and his followers ought to haue deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church hath declared her selfe in any matter of opinion or of Rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and externall obedience Nor is it fit or lawfull for any private man to oppose his judgement to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he doe it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutifull respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture despise the Church so far as to cut of her Cōmunion he may be justly branded condemned for a Schismatique yea an Heretique also in some degree in foro exteriori though his opinion were true much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee haue spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schisme or Heresy Could they haue stronger Motives to oppose the doctrine of the Church and leave her Communion then evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should haue answered rectified their conscience by your doctrine that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or reason yet it was not lawfull for any private man to oppose his iudgement to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace externall obedience and if they cast off the Communion of the Church for maintaining their own Conceits they may be branded for Schismatiques and Heretiques in some degree in foro exteriori that is all other Christians ought so to esteem of them and why then are we accounted uncharitable for judging so of you and they also are obliged to behaue themselves
change the state of the Question but you mistake it For the Question was not whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and continue in her externall communion which we confesse impossible because these corruptions were in her communion But the Question was whether they might forsake the corruptions of the Church and not the Church but continue still the Members of it And to this Question there is not in your whole discourse one pertinent syllable 50 We doe not confound internall Acts of understanding with externall deeds but acknowledge as you would have us that we cannot as matters now stand separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your Externall communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in externall Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in externall communion can be both true parts of the Catholique Church 51 We are not to learn the difference between Schisme Heresy for Heresy we conceive an obstinate defence of any Errour against any necessary Article of the Christian faith And Schisme a causelesse separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismatiques for refusing to joyne with you in the profession of these Errors and the practise of these corruptions And therefore you must free your selves from Error or us from Schisme 52 Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the externall communion of the Visible Church adde which externall communion was corrupted and we shall confesse the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made ourselves out-lawes from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of your separation from the externall communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches externall communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53 That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schisme we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concernes every man who separates from any Churches communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to looke most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unlesse it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors superstitions and impieties will not justify our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reforme themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you referre us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alleaging them you have gain'd little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Iudges of this controversy their sentence is against you much rather then for you 54 Lastly whereas you desire D. Potter to remember his own words There neither was nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe and pretend that you have shewed that Luther did so The Doctor remembers his words very well and hath no reason to be ashamed of them Only he desires you to remember that hereafter you doe not confound as hitherto you have done departing from the Church i. e. ceasing to be a member of it with departing from the Churches externall communion and then he is perswaded it will appeare to you that against Luther and his followers you have said many things but shewed nothing 55 But the Church Vniversall remaining the Church Vniversall according to D. Potter may fall into error And from hence it cleerely followes that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Church so corrupted and retain externall communion with the Catholique Church Ans. The reason of this consequence which you say is so cleere truly I cannot possibly discern But the conclusion inferr'd methinkes is evident of it selfe and therefore without proofe I grant it I meane that it is impossible to leave the externall communion of the Catholique Church corrupted and to retain externall communion with the Catholique Church But what use you can make of it I doe not understand Vnlesse you will pretend that to say a man may forsake the Churches corruptions and not the Church is all one as to say he may forsake the Churches externall Communion and not forsake it If you mean so sure you mistake the meaning of Protestants when they say They forsook not the Church but her corruptions For in saying so they neither affirme nor deny that they forsooke the externall communion of the Church nor speake at all of it But they mean only that they ceased not to be still members of the Church though they ceased to believe and practise some things which the whole Church formerly did believe and practise And as for the externall Communion of the Visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it that is renounce the practise of some observances in which the whole visible Church before thē did communicate But this we say they did without Schisme because they had cause to do so and no man can have cause to be a Schismatique 56 But your Argument you conceive will bee more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans. The ground of this is no way certain nor here sufficiently proved For whereas you say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much lesse extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had lately all power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Neither secondly to suppose a Visible Church before Luther which did not erre is it to contradict this ground of D. Potters that the Church may erre Vnlesse you will have us believe that May be and Must be is all one and that all which may be true is true which rule if it were true then sure all men would be honest because all men may be so and you would not
forgive a private offender seventy seven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of Trespasses and thou how dare we alleage his command that we must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall Ans. He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often will not allow us for his sake to sinne with him so much as once He will have us doe any thing but sinne rather then offend any man But his will is also that we offend all the World rather then sinne in the least matter And therefore though his will were and it were in our power which yet is false to pardon the errors of an erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should erre with the Church or if we doe not that we should against conscience professe the errors of it 71 Ad § 24. But Schismatiques from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the errors of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schisme Ans. True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we doe as a murtherer can cry not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so truly nor so justly The question is not what may be pretended but what can bee proved by Schismatiques They may object errors to other Churches as well as we doe to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appeares not To the Priests and elders of the Iewes imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles S. Peter and S. Iohn answered they must obey God rather then men The three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give me now any factious Hypocrite who makes religion the pretence and cloke of his Rebellion and who sees not that such a one may answer for himselfe in those very formall words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny but this answer was good in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs though it were obnoxious to be abused by Traitors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismatiques may make use of this Answer therefore all that doe make use of it are Schismatiques But moreover it is to be observed that the chiefe part of our defence that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72 But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schismes and therefore it must not be forsaken Ans. We must not doe evill to avoid evill neither are all courses presently lawfull by which inconveniences may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chiefe Mufty of the Turkes it is apparent there would be no divisions yet unity is not to be purchased at so deare a rate It were a thing much to be desired that there were no divisions yet difference of opinions touching points controverted is rather to be chosen then unanimous concord in damned errors As it is better for men to goe to heaven by diverse waies or rather by divers paths of the same way then in the same path to goe on peaceably to hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas 73 But there can be no iust cause to forsake the Church so the Doctor grants who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may erre in points not fundamentall therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errors Ans. There can be no just cause to forsake the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is to cease being a member of the Church This I grant if it will doe you any service But that there can be no just cause to forsake the Church in some things or to speak more properly to forsake some opinions and practices which some true Church retaines and defends this I deny and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirmes it 74 Ad § 26. 27. What prodigious doctrines say you are these Those Protestants who belieue that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others c. Prodigious doctrines indeed But who I pray are they that teach them Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schisme who left your Church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points What Protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plaine precepts of Christ both Ceremoniall in mutilating the Communion and Morall in points of superstition Idolatry and most bloody tyranny which is without question to erre in necessary matters Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schisme for holding so if he should he should call himselfe a Schismatique Only he saies such if there be any such as affirm that ignorant soules among you who had no means to know the truth cannot possibly be saved that their wisdome and charity cannot be justified Now you your selfe haue plainly affirmed That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may bee saved and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say that Protestants erre in no points necessary to salvation For that may be in it selfe and in ordinary course where there are meanes of knowledge necessary which to a man invincibly ignorant will proue not necessary Again where doth D. Potter suppose as you make him that there were other Protestants who believed that your Church had no errours Or where does hee say they did well to forsake her upon this ridiculous reason because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation Doe you think us so stupid as that wee cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter sayes and that which you make him say He vindicates Protestants from Schisme two waies The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismatiques never haue because they that haue it are no Schismatiques For schisme is alwaies a causelesse separation The other is because they did not joyn with their separation an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves as the manner of Schismatiques is Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation you make him make the cause of it and the motiue to it And whereas he saies though we separate from you in some things yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the body of Christ and therefore are not Schismatiques You make him say most absurdly we did well to forsake you because we iudged you a member of the body of Christ. Iust as if a brother should leaue his Brothers company in some ill courses and should say
committed and which they fear they may haue In which number their being negligent or not dispassionate or not unprejudicate enough in seeking the truth and the effect thereof their errors if they be sinnes cannot but be compriz'd In a word what should hinder but that that Prayer Delicta sua quis intelligit who can understand his faults Lord cleanse thou me from my secret sinnes may be heard and accepted by God as well from a Protestant that dies in some errours as from a Papist that dies in some other sins of Ignorance which perhaps he might more easily haue discovered to bee sinnes then a Protestant could his errours to be errours As well from a Protestant that held some errour which as he conceived Gods word and his reason which is also in some sort Gods word led him unto as from a Dominican who perhaps took up his opinion upon trust not because he had reason to beleiue it true but because it was the opinion of his Order for the same man if hee had light upon another Order would in all probabilitie haue beene of the other opinion For what else is the cause that generally all the Dominicans are of one opinion and all the Iesuits of the other I say from a Dominican who took up his opinion upon trust and that such an opinion if we beleiue the writers of your Order as if it be granted true it were not a point matter what opinions any man held or what actions any man did for the best would be as bad as the worst the worst as good as the best And yet such is the partialitie of your Hypocrisie that of disagreeing Papists neither shall deny the truth testified by God but both may hope for salvation but of disagreeing Protestants though they differ in the same thing one side must deny Gods Testimony and bee incapable of salvation That a Dominican through culpable negligence living and dying in his errour may repent of it though hee knowes it not or be saued though he doe not But if a Protestant doe the very same thing in the very same point and die in his errour his case is desperate The summe of all that hath been said to this Demand is this 1. That no erring Protestant denies any truth testified by God under this formalitie as testified by him nor which they know or beleiue to be testified by him And therefore it is a horrible calumnie in you to say They call Gods Veracitie in question For Gods undoubted and unquestion'd Veracitie is to them the ground why they hold all they doe hold neither doe they hold any opiniō so stifly but they will forgoe it rather then this one That all which God saies is true 2. God hath not so clearely and plainly declared himselfe in most of these things which are in controversie between Protestants but that an honest man whose heart is right to God and one that is a true louer of God and of his truth may by reason of the conflict of contrary Reasons on both sides very easily and therefore excusably mistake and embrace errour for truth and reject truth for errour 3 If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any Errour by any sinne of his will as it is to be fear'd many millions are such Errour is as the cause of it sinfull and damnable yet not exclusiue of all hope of salvation but pardonable if discover'd upon a particular explicite repentance if not discover'd upon a generall and implicite repentance for all Sinnes knowne and unknowne in which number all sinfull Errours must of necessity be contained 17 To the 9. To the nineteenth Wherein you are so urgent for a partilar Catalogue of Fundamentalls I answer almost in your owne words that we also constantly urge and require to haue a particular Catalogue of your Fundamentals whether they be written Verities or unwritten Traditions or Church Definitions all which you say integrate the materiall Object of your Faith In a word of all such points as are defin'd and sufficiently proposed so that whosoever denies or doubts of any of them is certainly in the state of damnation A Catalogue I say in particular of the Proposals and not only some generall definition or description under which you lurke deceitfully of what and what only is sufficiently proposed wherein yet you doe not very well agree For many of you hold the Popes proposall Ex Cathedra to be sufficient and obligeing Some a Councel without a Pope Some of neither of them severally but only both together Some not this neither in matter of manners which Bellarmine acknowledges tells us it is all one in effect as if they denied it sufficient in matter of faith Some not in matter of faith neither think this proposall infallible without the acceptation of the Church universall Some deny the infallibility of the Present Church and only make the Tradition of all ages the infallible Propounder Yet if you were agreed what and what only is the Infallible Propounder this would not satisfie us nor yet to say that All is fundamentall which is propounded sufficiently by him For though agreeing in this yet you might still disagree whether such or such a Doctrine were propounded or not or if propounded whether sufficiently or only unsufficiently And it is so knowne a thing that in many points you doe so that I assure my selfe you will not deny it Therefore we constantly urge and require a particular and perfect Inventory of all these Divine Revelations which you say are sufficiently propounded that such a one to which all of your Church will subscribe as neither redundant nor deficient which when you giue in with one hand you shall receiue a particular Catalogue of such Points as I call Fundamentall with the other Neither may you think mee unreasonable in this demand seeing upon such a particular Catalogue of your sufficient Proposalls as much depends as upon a particular Catalogue of our Fundamentalls As for example Whether or no a man doe not erre in some point defined and sufficiently proposed and whether or no those that differ among you differ in Fundamentalls which if they doe One Heaven by your owne Rule cannot receiue them All. Perhaps you will here complaine that this is not to satisfie your demand but to avoid it and to put you off as the Areopagites did hard causes ad diem longissimum and bid you come againe a hundred yeares hence To deale truly I did so intend it should be Nether can you say my dealing with you is injurious seeing I require nothing of you but that what you require of others you should shew it possible to be done and just and necessary to be required For for my part I haue great reason to suspect it is neither the one nor the other For whereas the Verities which are delivered in Scripture may be very fitly divided into such as were written because they were necessary to be beleived
you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable then our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand againe some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands untill you settle me upon a Rock I mean giue such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Vniversall Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receiue it is For wee doe not professe our selues so absolutely and and undoubtedly certain neither doe we urge others to be so of those Books which haue been doubted as of those that never haue 46 The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it selfe alone but by some extrinsecall authority Which you need not proue for no wise man denies it But then this authority is that of Vniversall Tradition not of your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospell of Saint Mathew is the word of God as that all which your Church saies is true 47 That Believers of the Scripture by considering the divine matter the excellent precepts the glorious promises contained in it may be confirmed in their faith of the Scriptures divine Authority that among other inducements and inforcements hereunto internall arguments haue their place and force certainly no man of understanding can deny For my part I professe if the doctrine of the Scripture were not as good and as fit to come from the fountain of goodnesse as the Miracles by which it was confirm'd were great I should want one main pillar of my faith and for want of it I feare should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Belieuer sees by that glorious beam of divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internall Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is hee is moved to and strengthned in his beliefe of it and by this partly not wholly by this not alone but with the concurrence of other Arguments He that will quarrell with him for saying so must finde fault with the Master of the Sentences and all his Schollers for they all say the same The rest of this Paragraph I am as willing it should be true◠as you are to haue it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholy unconcern'd You might haue met with an Answerer that would not haue suffred you to haue said so much Truth together but to me it is sufficient that it is nothing to the purpose 48 In the next Division out of your liberality you will suppose that Scripture like to a corporall light is by it selfe alone able to determine and moue our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposall Faith still you say must goe before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that haue eyes so the Scripture onely to those that haue the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture doe moue and determine our Vnderstanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must bee before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else then the Vnderstanding's assent And therefore upon this supposall Faith doth and must originally proceed from Scripture as the effect from its proper cause and the influence and efficacy of Scripture is to be presuppos'd before the assent of faith unto which it moues and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it selfe being able as here you suppose to determine and moue the understanding to assent that is to belieue them and the Verities contained in them Neither is this to say that the eyes with which we see are made by the light by which we see For you are mistaken much if you conceiue that in this comparison Faith answers to the Eye But if you will not pervert it the Analogie must stand thus◠Scripture must answer to light The eye of the soule that is the Vnderstanding or the faculty of assenting to the bodily eye And lastly assenting or believing to the act of seeing As therefore the light determining the Eye to see though it presupposes the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it selfe is presuppos'd and antecedent to the act of seeing as the cause is alwaies to its effect So if you will suppose that Scripture like light moues the understanding to assent The Vnderstanding that 's the eye and object on which it works must bee before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moues and the understanding is mov'd which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already to what purpose should the Scripture doe that which was done before Nay indeed how were it possible it should be so any more then a Father can beget a Sonne that he hath already Or an Architect build an house that is built already Or then this very world can bee made againe before it be unmade Transubstantiation indeed is fruitfull of such Monsters But they that haue not sworne themselues to the defence of Errour will easily perceiue that I am factum facere and Factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digresse 49 The close of this Paragraph is a fit cover for such a dish There you tell us That if there must be some other meanes precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other then the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can haue faith but he must bee mou'd to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants to whom you write though they verily think they are Christians belieue the Gospell because they assent to the truth of it and would willingly dye for it yet indeed are Infidels and belieue nothing The Scripture tells us The heart of man knoweth no man but the spirit of man which is in him And who are you to take upon you to make us belieue that we doe not belieue what we know we doe But if I may think verily that I belieue the Scripture and yet not belieue it how know you that you belieue the Roman Church I am as verily and as
their communion and divide himselfe from all other Communions from which they were divided which was a condition both unnecessary and unlawfull to be required and therefore the exacting of it was directly opposite to the Churches Catholicisme in the very same nature with their Errours who required Circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses as necessary to salvation For whosoever requires harder or heavier conditions of men then God requires of them he it is that is properly an Enemie of the Churches Vniversality by hindering either Men or Countries from adjoyning themselves to it which were it not for these unnecessary and therefore unlawful conditions in probability would haue made thē members of it And seeing the present Church of Rome perswades men they were as good for any hope of Salvation they haue not to be Christians as not to be Roman Catholiques believe nothing at all as not believe all which they impose upon them Be absolutely out of the Churches Communion as be out of their Communion or be in any other whether they be not guilty of the same crime with the Donatists those Zelots of the Mosaicall Law I leave it to the judgement of those that understand reason This is sufficient to shew the vanity of this Argument But I adde moreover that you neither haue named those Protestants who held the Church to haue perished for many ages who perhaps held not the destruction but the corruption of the church not that the true Church but that the pure Church perished or rather that the Church perished not from its life and existence but from its purity and integrity or perhaps from its splendour and visibility Neither have you proved by any one reason but only affirmed it to be a fundamentall Errour to hold that the Church militant may possibly bee driven out of the world and abolished for a time from the face of the earth 65 But to accuse the Church of any Errour in faith is to say she lost all faith For this is the Doctrine of Catholique Divines that one Errour in faith destroyes faith To which I answer that to accuse the Church of some Errour in faith is not to say she lost all faith For this is not the doctrine of Catholique Divines But that he which is an Heretique in one Article may haue true faith of other Articles And the contrary is only said and not shewed in Charity Mistaken 66 Ad § 21. D. Potter saies We may not depart from the Church absolutely and in all things and from hence you conclude Therefore we may not depart from it in any thing And this Argument you call a Demonstration But a Fallacy à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid was not used heretofore to be called a Demonstration D. Potter sayes not that you may not depart from any opinion or any practise of the Church for you tell us in this very place that he saies even the Catholique may erre and every man may lawfully depart from Errour He only sayes you may not cease to be of the Church nor depart from those things which make it so to be and from hence you inferre a necessity of forsaking it in nothing Iust as if you should argue thus You may not leaue your friend or brother therefore you may not leave the Vice of your friend or the Errour of your brother What he saies of the Catholique Church p. 75. the same hee extends presently after to every true though never so corrupted part of it And why doe you not conclude from hence that no particular Church according to his judgement can fall into any Errour and call this a Demonstration too For as he saies p. 75. That there can be no just cause to depart from the whole Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe So p. 76. He tells you that whosoever forsakes any one true member of this body for sakes the whole So that what he saies of the one hee saies of the other and tells you that neither Vniversall nor Particular Church so long as they continue so may bee forsaken hee meanes Absolutely no more then Christ himselfe may be forsaken absolutely For the Church is the body of Christ and whosoever forsakes either the Body or his coherence to any one part of it must forsake his subordination and relation to the Head Therefore whosoever forsakes the Church or any Christian must forsake Christ himselfe 67 But then he tells you plainly in the same place That it may be lawfull and necessary to depart from a Particular Church in some Doctrines and Practises And this he would haue said even of the Catholike Church if there had been occasion but there was none For there he was to declare and justifie our departure not from the Catholique Church but the Roman which we maintain to be a particular Church But in other places you confesse his doctrine to be that even the Catholique church may erre in points not Fundamentall which you doe not pretend that he ever imputed to Christ himselfe And therefore you cannot with any candor interpret his words as if he had said We may not forsake the Church in any thing no more then Christ himselfe but only thus We may not cease to be of the Church nor forsake it absolutely and totally no more then Christ himselfe And thus we see sometimes a mountain may travail and the production may be a mouse 68 Ad § 22. But D. Potter either contradicts himselfe or else must grant the Church infallible Because he saies if we did not differ from the Roman we could not agree with the Catholique which saying supposes the Catholique Church cannot erre Answer This Argument to giue it the right name is an obscure and intricate nothing And to make it appeare so let us suppose in contradiction to your supposition either that the Catholique Church may erre but doth not but that the Roman actually doth or that the Catholique Church doth erre in some few things but that the Roman erres in many more And is it not apparent in both these cases which yet both suppose the Churches Fallibility a man may truly say unlesse I dissent in some opinions from the Roman Church I cannot agree with the Catholique Either therefore you must retract your imputation laid upon D. Potter or doe that which you condemne in him and be driven to say that the same man may hold some errours with the Church of Rome and at the same time with the Catholique Church not hold but condemne them For otherwise in neither of these cases is it possible for the same man at the same time to agree both with the Roman and the Catholique 69 In all these Texts of Scripture which are here alleaged in this last Section of this Chapter or in any one of them or in any other doth God say cleerly and plainly The Bishop of Rome and that Society of Christians which adheres to him shall bee ever
the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecâ—ssary additions as you terme them And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation they should grow to fundamentall errors into which your selfe teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such unprofitable stâ—ff laid on the roofe destroies not the house whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundatioâ— And tell us I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot doe it and therefore being uncertain whether or no you have cause to leave the Church you are certainly obliged not to forsake her Our blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we forgive a private offender seaventy seaven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alleadge his command that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not fundamentall What excuse can you faine to your selves who for points not necessary to salvation have been occasions causes and authors of so many mischiefes as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach in kingdomes in commonwealths in private persons in publique Magistrates in body in soul in goods in life in Church in the state by Schismes by rebellions by war by famine by plague by bloudshed by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth wherein as in a map of Desolation the heavinesse of your crime appeares under which the world doth pant 24 To say for your excuse that you left not the Church but her errors doth not extenuate but aggravate your sinne For by this devise you sow seeds of endles Schismes and put into the mouth of all Separatists a ready answere how to avoid the note of Schisme from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoever They will I say answer as you doe prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not fundamentall and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors which two grounds being once laid it will not be hard to infer the consequence that she may be forsaken 25 From some other words of D. Potter I likewise prove that for Errors not fundamentall the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was saith he nor can be any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more then from Christ himselfe To depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some doctrines and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to salvation Marke his doctrine that there can be no iust cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall Therefore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for points not fundamentall for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your selfe deny and I pray you consider whether you doe not plainly contradict your selfe while in the words aboue recited you say there can be no iust cause to forsake the Catholique Church and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome since you grant that the Church of Christ may erre in points not fundamentall and that the Roman Church hath erred only in such points as by and by we shall see more in particular And thus much be said to disprove their chiefest Answer that they left not the Church but her corruptions 26 Another evasion D. Potter bringeth to avoid the imputation of Schisme and it is because they still acknowledge the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of salvation And this saith he cleeres us from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates 27 This is an Answere which perhaps you may get some one to approve if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious doctrines are these Those Protestants who believe that the Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schisme But others who believed that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they iudged that she retained all meanes necessary to salvation I say because they so iudged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himselfe and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsooke is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvations whereas those other Zelots deny her to be a member of Christs body or capable of salvation wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they doe it upon a different motive or reason were it not a strange excuse if a man would think to cloak his rebellion by alledging that he held the person against whom he rebelled to be his lawfull Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himselfe free from Schisme because he forsook the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be the true Church and to have all necessary meanes to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemne foppery and doe much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakeable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confesse that they cannot cleere themselves from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation our Church Which is as much as if they should in plain termes say They must be damned unlesse we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemne your zealous brethren of Heresy for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not cleere your selfe from Schisme which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith as you must professe your selfe to agree with the Church of Rome in all fundamentall Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of salvation and so condemne your selfe of Schisme And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schisme you cannot cleere your selfe from that crime unlesse you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you doe not cut us off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be iust and necessary canse That they that have the understanding and meanes to discover their error and neglect to use them we dare
in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will doe a deed of Charity by putting you in mind into what labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some points of faith yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he haue evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be coÌ„tained in holy Scripture How much more coherently doe Catholiques proceed who believe the universall infallibility of the Church and from thence are assured that there can be no evidence of Scripture or reason against her definitions nor any just cause to forsake her Communion M. Hooker esteemed by many Protestants an incomparable man yeelds as much as we haue alleaged out of you The will of God is saith he to haue them doe whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and finall decision shall determine yea though it seeme in their private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right Doth not this man tell Luther what the will of God was which he transgressing must of necessity bee guilty of Schisme And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universall infallibility of the Church or else driue men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speake Not unlike to this is your doctrine delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councell say you many good Cotholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptisme of Heretiques was ineffectuall and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errours therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Hereticall especially in the proper and most heavy or bitter sense of that word neither was it in the Churches intention or in her power to make them such by her declaration Her intention was to silence all disputes and to settle peace and unitie in her government to which all wise and peaceable men submitted whatsoever their opinion was And those factious people for their unreasonable and uncharitable opposition were very justly branded for Schismatiques For us the Mistaker will never proue that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore hee doth uniustlie charge us either with Schisme or Heresie These wordes manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her declarations Doctrines and Commands imposed upon them for silencing all disputes and setling peace and Vnity in the government and therefore they still remaining obstinately disobedient are justly charged with Schisme and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to haue been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concern as you hold a point not fundamentall to the Faith and which according to S. Augustine cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in points not fundamentall or else that it is Schisme to oppose her declarations in those very things wherein she may erre and consequently that Luther and his fellowes were Schismatiques by opposing the visible Church for points not fundamentall though it were untruely supposed that she erred in such points But by the way how come you on the suddaine to hold the determination of a Generall Councell of Nice to be the declaration of the Catholique Church seeing you teach That Generall Councels may erre even fundamentally And doe you now say with us that to oppose the declaration of the Church is sufficient that one may be branded with Heresie which is a point so often impugned by you 43 It is therefore most evident that no pretended scruple of conscience could excuse Luther which he might and ought to have rectified by meanes enough if Pride Ambition Obstinacy c. had given him leave I grant he was touched with scruple of conscience but it was because he had forsaken the visible Church of Christ and I beseech all Protestants for the loue they beare to that sacred ransome of their soules the Blood of our blessed Saviour attentiuely to ponder and unpartially to apply to their owne Conscience what this Man spoke concerning the feelings and remorse of his How often saith he did my trembling heart beat within me and reprehending me obiect against me that most strong argument Art thou only wise Doe so many worlds erre Were so many ages ignorant What if thou errest and drawest so many into hell to be damned eternally with thee And in another place he saith Dost thou who art but One and of no account take upon thee so great matters What if thou being but one offendest If God permit such so many all to erre why may he not permit thee to erre To this belong those arguments the Church the Church the Fathers the Fathers the Councels the Customes the multitudes and greatnes of wise men Whom doe not these Mountaines of arguments these clouds yea these seas of Examples overthrow And these thoughts wrought so deep in his soule that he often wished and desired that he had never begun this businesse wishing yet further that his Writings were burned and buried in eternall oblivion Behold what remorse Luther felt and how he wanted no strength of malice to crosse his own conscience and therefore it was no scruple or conceived obligation of conscience but some other motives which induced him to oppose the Church And if yet you doubt of his courage to encounter and strength to master all reluctations of conscience heare an example or two for that purpose Of Communion under both kinds thus he saith If the Councell should in any case decree this least of all would we then use both kinds yea rather in despight of the Councell and the Decree we would use either but one kind only or neither or in no case both Was not Luther perswaded in Conscience that to use neither kind was against our Saviours command Is this only to offer his opinion to be considered of as you said all men ought to doe And that you may be sure that he spoke from his heart and if occasion had been offered would have been as good as his word mark what he saith of the Elevation of the Sacrament I did know the Elevation of the Sacrament to be Idolatricall yet neverthelesse I did retain it in tâ—e Church at Wittemberg to the end I might vexe the divell Carolostadius Was not this a conscience large and capacious enough that could swallow Idolatry Why would he not tolerate Idolatry in the Church of Rome as these men are wont to blaspheame if he could retain it in his own Church at Wittemberge If Carolostadius
answerable but already answered The memorandums I would commend to him are these 30 That not every separation but only a causelesse separation from the externall Communion of any Church is the Sinne of Schisme 31 That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errours and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause which Protestants alleage to justifie their separation from the Church of Rome 32 That to leave the Church and to leave the externall Communion of a Church at least as D. Potter understands the words is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to haue those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publike worship of God This little Armour if it be rightly placed I am perswaded will repell all those Batteries which you threaten shall be so furious 33 Ad § 13. 14. 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austine against Donatus applied to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madnesse moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men Whereunto one faire answer to let passe many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospell as it is not is impertinently applied to Luther and Lutherans Whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties And your not substituting Luther in stead of Donatus in the latter part of the Dilemma as well as in the former would make a suspicious man conjecture that you your selfe took notice of this exception of disparitie between Donatus and Luther 34 Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrine if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you doe understand it is a certain truth and it is easier for you to declaime as you doe then to dispute against it But these men you say must bee Heretiques because they separated from the Communion of the visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35 Ans. I might very justly desire some proofe of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the daies of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable then you can make your Negatiue We read in Scripture that Elias conceived There was none left besides himselfe in the whole kingdome of Israell who had not revolted from God and yet God himselfe assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgement touching his own time and his own countrey why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some countrey or other there were not alwaies some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and thinke it sufficient to tell you that if it bee true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must haue joyn'd with thē in the practise of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be schismaticall 36 Yes you reply to forsake the externall Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formall proper sin of Schisme Ans. Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I bee bound for feare of Schisme to communicate with those that believe as I doe only in lawfull things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would haue them do or else forsooth they must be Schismatiques But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Beleevers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonablenesse of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being schismaticall 37 Arg But the property of Schisme according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants haue this property Therefore they are Schismatiques 38 Ans. I deny the Syllogisme it is no better then this One Symptome of the Plague is a Feaver But such a man hath a Feaver Therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusiō which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptome of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they haue one property or one quality of Schismatiques And as in the former instance The man that hath one signe of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not haue the plague So these Protestants may haue something of Schismatiques and yet not be Schismatiques A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemnes a malefactor doe both sentence a man to death and so for the matter doe both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismatiques either alwaies or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same doe these Protestants yet are not Schismatiques The Reason because Schismatiques doe it and doe it without cause and Protestants haue cause for what they doe The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unlesse where they are excus'd by ignorance and expiated at least by a generall repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismatiques doe so yet universall affirmatiues are not converted and therefore it followes not by any good Logick that all that doe so when there is just cause for it must be Schismatiques The cause in this matter of separation is
For it is to require that they which believe some part of your Doctrine false should withall believe it all true Seeing therefore for any man to believe your Church in error and professe the contrary is damnable Hypocrisie to believe it and not believe it a manifest repugnancy and thirdly to professe it and to continue in your Communion as matters now stand a plain impossibility what remaines but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to disbelieve any doctrine of your Church must of necessity forsake her Communion Vnlesse you would remit so farre from your present rigour as to allow them your Churches communion who publiquely professe that they doe not believe every article of her established Doctrine Indeed if you would doe so you might with some coherence suppose your Church in error and yet finde fault with men for abandoning her communion because they might continue in it and suppose her in error But to suppose your Church in error and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition and then to complain that they continue not in your communion is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined And therefore though your corruptions in doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging us to professe your doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your communion As if there were any society of Christians that held there were no Antipodes notwithstanding this error I might communicate with them But if I could not doe so without professing my selfe of their beleefe in this matter then I suppose I should be excus'd from Schisme if I should forsake their communion rather then professe my selfe to believe that which I doe not believe Neither is there any contradiction or shadow of contradiction that it may be necessary for my Salvation to depart from this Churches communion And that this Church though erring in this matter wants nothing necessary to Salvation And yet this is that manifest contradiction which D. Potter you say will never be able to salve viz. That there might be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrines and practices though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation 60 And your Reason wherewith you prove that there is in these words such a plain contradiction is very notable For say you if she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation how could it be necessary to Salvation to forsake her Truly Sir if this be a good manner of proving it is a very ready way to prove any thing for what is there that may not be proved if it be proofe enough to aske how it can be otherwise Me thinkes if you would convince D. Potter's words of manifest contradiction you should shew that he affirmes and denies the same of the same From which fault me thinkes he should be very innocent who saies only that that may be damnable to one which is not so to another and that may be necessary for one which is not necessary for another And this is all that D. Potter saies here viz. That the profession of a falsehood to him that believes it may be not damnable and yet damnable to him that believes the contrary Or that not to professe a falsehood in him that knowes it to be so is necessary to Salvation and yet not so in him that by error conceives it to be a truth The words by you cited and charged with unsalvable contradiction are in the 75. pag. But in the progresse of the same particular discourse in the next page but one he gives such evident reason of them which can hardly be done to prove implicancy true that whereas you say he will never be able to salve them from contradiction I believe any indifferent reader having considered the place will be very apt to think that you whatsoever you pretend were very able to have done this curtesy for him if your will had been answerable to your ability I will set down the words and leave the Reader to condemne or absolve them To forsake the errors of that Church and not to joyne with her in those practices which we account erroneous wee are enforced by necessity For though in the issue they are not damnable to them which belieue as they professe yet for us to professe avow by oath as the Church of Rome enioynes what we belieue not were without question damnable And they with their errours by the grace of God might goe to Heaven when we for our hypocrisie and dissimulation he might haue added and Perjury should certainly be condemned to Hell 61 Ad § 20. But a Church not erring in Fundamentalls though erring in other matters doth what our Saviour exacts at her hands doth as much as lies in her power to doe Therefore the Communion of such a Church is not upon pretence of Errour to be forsaken The consequence is manifest The Antecedent is proved because God by D. Potters confession hath promised his assistance no further nor is it in her power to doe more then God doth assist her to doe Ans. The promise of Divine Assistance is two fold Absolute or Conditionall That there shall be by Divine providence preseru'd in the world to the worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctor affirmes that God hath promised absolutely Yet he neither doubts nor denies but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us even such an assistance as shall lead us if we be not wanting to it and our selves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guard us from all not only destructive but also hurtfull Errours This I say he neither denies nor questions And should he haue done so hee might haue been confuted by evident and expresse Text of Scripture When therefore you say That a Church not erring in Fundamentalls doth as much as by Gods assistance lies in her power to doe This is manifestly untrue For Gods assistance is alwaies ready to promote her farther It is ready I say but on condition the Church does implore it on condition that when it is offered in the divine directions of Scripture and reason the Church be not negligent to follow it If therefore there be any Church which retaining the foundation builds hay and stubble upon it which believing what is precisely necessary erres shamefully and dangerously in other things very profitable This by no meanes argues defect of divine assistance in God but neglect of this assistance in the Church Neither is there any reason why such a Church should please her selfe too much for retaining Fundamentall truths while shee remaines so regardlesse of others For though the simple defect of some truths profitable onely and not simply necessary may consist with salvation Yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance that the neglect
to him Herein I forsake you yet I leave you not absolutely for I acknowledge you still to be my brother and shall use you as a brother And you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said I leaue your company in these ill courses and I doe well to doe so because you are my Brother so making that the cause of his leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75 But you say The very reason for which hee acquitteth himselfe from Schisme is because he holds that the Church which they forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ. Ans. This is true But can you not perceive a difference between justifying his separation from Schisme by this reason and making this the reason of his separation If a man denying obedience in some unlawfull matter to his lawfull Soveraign should say to him herein I disobey you but yet I am no Rebell because I acknowledge you my Soveraign Lord and am ready to obey you in all things lawfull should not he be an egregious sycophant that should accuse him as if he had said I doe well to disobey you because I acknowledge you my lawfull Soveraign Certainly hee that joynes this acknowledgment with his necessitated disobedience does well but he that makes this consideration the reason of his disobedience doth ill Vrge therefore this as you call it most solemn foppery as far as you please For every understanding Reader will easily perceiue that this is no foppery of D. Potters but a calumny of yours from which he is as far as he is from holding yours to bee the true Church whereas it is a sign of a great deal of Charity in him that he allowes you to be a Part of it 76 And whereas you pretend to finde such unspeakable comfort here in that we cannot cleare our selues from Schisme otherwise then by acknowledging that they doe not nor cannot cut off your Church from the hope of salvation I beseech you to take care that this false comfort cost you not too deare For why this good opinion of God Almighty that he will not damne men for errour who were without their owne fault ignorant of the truth should be any consolation to them who having the key of knowledge will neither use it themselves nor permit others to use it who haue eyes to see and will not see who haue cares to heare and will not heare this I assure you passeth my capacity to apprehend Neither is this to make our salvation depend on yours but only ours and yours not desperatly inconsistent Nor to say wee must be damn'd unlesse you may be saved but that we assure our selues if our lives be answerable we shall be saved by our knowledge And that wee hope and I tell you again Spes est reiincertae nomen that some of you may possibly bee the rather saved by occasion of their unaffected Ignorance 77 For our Brethren whom you say we condemn of heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity we know none that doe so unlesse you conceive a corrupted Church to be none at all and if you doe then for ought I know in your account we must be all Heretiques for all of us acknowledge that the Church might be corrupted even with errors in themselves damnable and not only might but hath been 78 But Schisme consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of faith Now we must professe you agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamentall Articles Therefore we are Schismatiques Ans. Either in your Major by all points of faith you mean all fundamentall points only or all simply and absolutely If the former I deny your Major for I may without all schisme divide from that Church which erres in any point of faith Fundamentall or otherwise if she require the profession of this Errour among the conditions of her Communion Now this is our case If the latter I deny the syllogisme as having manifestly foure termes and being cosen German to this He that obeys God in all things is innocent Titius obeys God in some things Therefore he is innocent 79 But they who judge a reconciliation with the Church of Rome to be damnable they that say there might be iust and necessary cause to depart from it and that they of that Church which haue understanding means to discover their Errour and neglect to use them are not to bee flattered with hope of salvation they doe cut off that Church from the body of Christ and the hope of salvation and so are Schismatiques But D. Potter doth the former therefore is a Schismatique Ans. No he doth not not cut off that whole Church from the hope of salvation not those members of it who were invincibly or excusably ignorant of the truth but those only who having understanding and meanes to discover their errour neglect to use them Now these are not the whole Church therefore he that supposing their impenitence cuts these off from hope of salvation cannot be justly said to cut off that whole Church from the Body of Christ and the hope of salvation 80 Ad § 28. 29. Whereas D. Potter saies There is a great difference between a Schisme from them and a Reformation of our selves this you â—ay is a quaint subtilty by which all Schisme and sinne may be as well excused It seems then in your judgement that theeves and adulterers and murtherers and traytors may say with as much probability as Protestants that they did no hurt to others but only reforme themselves But then me thinks it is very strange that all Protestants should agree with one consent in this defence of themselves from the imputation of Schisme and that to this day never any Theefe or Murtherer should haue been heard of to make use of this Apologie And then for Schismatiques I would know whether Victor Bishop of Rome who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for not conforming to his Church in keeping Easter whether Novatian that divided from Cornelius upon pretence that himselfe was elected Bishop of Rome when indeed he was not whether Felicissimus and his Crew that went out of the Church of Carthage and set up altar against altar because having fallen in persecutioÌ„ they might not be restored to the peace of the Church presently upon the intercession of the Confessours whether the Donatists who divided from and damned all the world because all the world would not excommunicate them who were accused onely and not convicted to haue been Traditors of the sacred Books whether they which for the slips infirmity of others which they might and ought to tolerate or upon some difference in matters of Order Ceremony or for some errour in doctrine neither pernitious nor hurtfull to faith or piety separate themselves from others or others from themselves or lastly whether they that put themselves out of the Churches unity and obedience because their opinions are
faith had they known it necessary S. Luke especially who plainly professeth that his intent was to write all things necessary Me thinks S. Paul writing to the Romans could not but have congratulated this their Priviledge to them Me thinks instead of saying Your faith is spoken of all the world over which you haue no reason to be very proud of for he saies the very same thing to the Thessalonians he could not haue fayl'd to haue told them once at least in plaine termes that their faith was the Rule for all the World for ever But then sure he would haue forborn to put them in feare of an impossibility as hee doth in his eleventh Chap. that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not look to their standing might fall away to infidelity as the Iews had done Me thinks in all his other Epistles at least in some at least in one of them he could not have fayled to haue given the world this direction had he known it to be a true one that all men were to be guided by the Church of Rome and none to separate from it under pain of damnation Me thinks writing so often of Heretiques and Antichrist hee should haue given the world this as you pretend onely sure preservative from them How was it possible that S. Peter writing two Catholique Epistles mentioning his own departure writing to preserve Christians in the faith should in neither of them commend them to the guidance of his pretended Successours the Bishops of Route How was it possible that S. Iames and S. Iude in their Catholique Epistles should not giue this Catholique direction Me thinks S. Iohn instead of saying he that believeth that Iesus is the Christ is born of God The force of which direction your glosses doe quite enervate and make unavailable to discern who are the sonnes of God should haue said Hee that adheres to the doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it he is a good Christian and by this Mark yee shall know him What man not quite out of his witts if he consider as he should the pretended necessity of this doctrine that without the beliefe hereof no man ordinarily can be saved can possibly force himselfe to conceive that all these good and holy men so desirous of mens salvation and so well assured of it as it is pretended should be so deeply and affectedly silent in it and not One say it plainly so much as once but leaue it to be collected from uncertain Principles by many more uncertain consequences Certainly he that can judge so uncharitably of them it is no marvell if he censure other inferiour servants of Christs Atheists and Hypocrites and what he pleases Plain places therefore I did and had reason to look for when I heard you say the holy Scripture assignes Separation from the visible Church as a Mark of Heresie But instead hereof what haue you brought us but meer impertinencies S. Iohn saith of some who pretended to be Christians and were not so and therefore when it was for their advantage forsook their Profession They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us Of some who before the decree of the Councell to the contrary were perswaded and accordingly taught that the convert Gentiles were to keep the Law of Moses it is said in the Acts Some who went out from us And again S. Paul in the same book forewarnes the Ephesians that out of them should arise men speaking perverse things And from these places which it seems are the plainest you have you collect that separation from the Visible Church is assigned by Scripture as a Mark of Heresie Which is certainly a strang and unheard of strain of Logick Vnlesse you will say that every Text wherein it is said that some body goes out from some body affords an Argument for this purpose For the first place there is no certainty that it speaks of Heretiques but no Christians of Antichrists of such as denied Iesus to be the Christ See the place and you shall confesse as much The second place it is certain you must not say it speaks of Heretiques for it speaks only of some who beleeved and taught an Errour while it was yet a question and not evident and therefore according to your doctrine no formall Heresy The third saies indeed that of the Professours of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresy But not one of them all that saies or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an Heretique Heretiques I confesse doe alwayes doe so But they that doe so are not alwayes Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to doe so as Rebels alwayes disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a Kings command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are lyable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authoritie your selves will not submit to in all things 2. That the first and last are meerly impertinent neither of them affirming or intimating that separation from the present Visible Church is a mark of Heresy and the former speaking plainly of separation from Vniversality Consent and Antiquity which if you will presume without proof that we did and you did not you beg the Question For you know we pretend that we separated only from that present Church which had separated from the doctrine of the Ancient and because she had done so and so farre forth as she had done so and no farther And lastly the latter part of Prospers words cannot be generally true according to your own grounds For you say a man may be divided from the Church upon meer Schisme without any mixture of Heresy And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresy Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be both before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Vniversally true That he who is divided from the Church is an Heretique and Antichrist 22 In the 19. § we have the Authority of eight Fathers urg'd to prove that the separation from the Church of Rome as it is the Sea of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is the Particular Church is the mark of Heresy Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unlesse you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrine whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be cōtrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequall or unreasonable then that you should presse us with
will let it passe and desire you to give me some peece or shadow of reason why I may not doe all this without a perpetuall Succession of Bishops and Pastours that have done so before me You may judge as uncharitably and speak as maliciously of me as your blind zeale to your Superstition shall direct you but certainly I know and with all your Sophistry you cannot make me doubt of what I know that I doe beleeve the Gospell of Christ as it is delivered in the undoubted books of Canonicall Scripture as verily as that it is now day that I see the light that I am now writing and I beleeve it upon this Motive because I conceive it sufficiently abundantly superabundantly proved to be divine Revelation And yet in this I doe not depend upon any Succession of men that have alwayes beleeved it without any mixture of Errour nay I am fully perswaded there hath been no such Succession aud yet doe not find my self any way weakned in my faith by the want of it but so fully assured of the truth of it that not only though your divels at Lowden doe tricks against it but though an Angell from heaven should gainsay it or any part of it I perswade my self that I should not be moved This I say and this I am sure is true and if you will be so hyperscepticall as to perswade me that I am not sure that I doe beleeve all this I desire you to tell me how are you sure that you beleeve the Church of Rome For if a man may perswade himself he doth beleeve what he doth not beleeve then may you think you beleeve the Church of Rome and yet not beleeve it But if no man can erre concerning what he beleeves then you must give me leave to assure my selfe that I doe beleeve and consequently that any man may beleeve the foresaid truths upon the foresaid motives without any dependance upon any Succession that hath beleeved it alwayes And as from your definition of faith so from your definition of Heresy this phancy may be refuted For questionlesse no man can be an Heretique but he that holds an Heresie and an Heresie you say is a Voluntary Errour therefore no man can be necessitated to be an Heretique whether he will or no by want of such a thing that is not in his power to have But that there should have been a perpetuall Succession of Beleevers in all points Orthodox is not a thing which is in your power therefore our being or not being Heretiques depends not on it Besides what is more certain then that he may make a streight line who hath a Rule to make it by though never man in the world had made any before and why then may not he that beleeves the Scripture to be the word of God and the Rule of faith regulate his faith by it and consequently beleeve aright without much regarding what other men either will doe or have done It is true indeed there is a necessity that if God will have his words beleeved he by his Providence must take order that either by succession of men or by some other meanes naturall or supernaturall it be preserv'd and delivered and sufficiently notified to bee his word but that this should be done by a Succession of men that holds no errour against it certainly there is no more necessity then that it should be done by a Succession of men that commit no sinne against it For if men may preserve the Records of a Law and yet transgresse it certainly they may also preserve directions for their faith and yet not follow them I doubt not but Lawyers at the Barre doe find by frequent experience that many men preserve and produce evidences which being examined of times make against themselves This they doe ignorantly it being in their power to suppresse or perhaps to alter them And why then should any man conceive it strange that an erroneous and corrupted Church should preserve and deliver the Scriptures uncorrupted when indeed for many reasons which I have formerly alleaged it was impossible for them to corrupt them Seeing therefore this is all the necessity that is pretended of a perpetuall Succession of men orthodoxe in all points certainly there is no necessity at all of any such neither can the want of it prove any man or any Church Hereticall 39 When therefore you have produced some proofe of this which was your Major in your former Syllogisme That want of Succession is a certain mark of Heresy you shall then receive a full answer to your Minor We shall then consider whether your indelible Character be any reality or whether it be a creature of your own making a fancy of your own imagination And if it be a thing and not only a word whether our Bishops and Priests have it not as well as yours whether some mens perswasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more then a mans perswasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will marke him not to have taken it if hee has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some make upon Heretiques that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferr'd on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Pope's right or an usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiasticall And if by Ecclesiasticall only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to loose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to loose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it untill good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present government established be as unlawfull to goe about to restore it Whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore wee cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schisme a man may not withdraw obediēce from an usurp'd Authority commanding unlawfull things Whether the Roman Church might not give authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Iudge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Traian gave
no fewer then seven times May you be pleased to look back to your own Book you shall find it so as I have said that at least in a hundred other places you make your advantage of this false imputation which when you have observ'd and withall considered that your selfe plainly intimate that D. Potters discourses which here you censure would be good and concluding if we did not as we doe not free you from damnable errour I hope you will acknowledge that my vouchsafing these Sections the honour of any farther answer is a great supererrogation in point of civility Neverthelesse partly that I may the more ingratiate my selfe with you but especially that I may stop their mouthes who will be apt to say that every word of yours which I should omit to speak to is an unanswerable argument I will hold my purpose of answering them more punctually and particularly 19 First then to your little parenthesis which you interline among D. Potters words § 7. That any small error in faith destroies all faith To omit what hath been said before I answer here what is proper for this place that S. Austine whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some error in faith and yet not to have no faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident you are with us saith he to the Donatists Ep. 48. in Baptisme in the Creed in the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast faith prove to me likewise that thou hast charity Paralell to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiasticall conversation common lessons the same faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgements of these Fathers even the Donatists though Heretiques and Schismatiques gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramentall Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true extream Vnction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteem'd Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remain'd with them entire for so he saies in expresse tearmes in his book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20 Whereas in the beginning of the 8. Sect. you deny that your argument drawn from our confessing the Possibility of your Salvation is for simple people alone but for all men I answer certainly whosoever is moved with it must be so simple as to think this a good and a concluding reason Some ignorant men in the Roman Church may be sav'd by the confession of Protestants which is indeed all that they confesse therefore it is safe for me to be of the Roman Church and he that does think so what reason is there why he should not think this as good Ignorant Protestans may be saved by the confession of Papists by name Mr K. therefore it is safe for me to be of the Protestant Church Whereas you say that this your argument is grounded upon an inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unlesse yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer this cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the termes but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many ages For neither doe you shew neither does it appear that the generation of Churches is univocall that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all ages any more then the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetuall pedigree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence overwatching and overruling it may preserve the meanes of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the authority of the word of God with men Thus the Iewes preserve meanes to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church doe as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talke vainly as if you were the only men in the world before Luther yet the world knowes that this but talke and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not beene Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant salvation to it unlesse by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusuall Sinechdoche 21 Whereas you say that Catholiques never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himselfe granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their error were not Heretiques and therefore notwithstanding their error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists 22 Whereas you say that D. Potter having cited out of S. Austine the words of the Catholiques that the Donatists had true Baptisme when he comes to the contrary words of the Donatist addes no Church no Salvation Ans. You wrong D. Potter who pretends not to cite S. Austines formall words but only his sense which in him is compleat and full for that purpose whereto it is alleaged by D. Potter His words are Petilianus dixit venite ad Ecclesiam Populi aufugite Traditores si perire non vultis Petilian saith come to the Church yee people and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damn'd for that yee may know that they being guilty esteeme very well of our Faith Behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholiques from salvation absolutely And therefore no Church no Salvation was not D. Potters addition
of Salvation to none among you but to those whose ignorance was the cause of their error and no sinne cause of their ignorance and presently after when another project comes in your head you make his words softer then oile towards you you pretend he does and must confesse That your Doctrine containes no damnable error that your Church is certainly a true Church that your way to heaven is a safe way and all these acknowledgements you set down simple and absolute without any restriction or limitation whereas in the Doctor they are all so qualified that no knowing Papist can promise himselfe any security or comfort from them We confesse saith he the Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errors to some men not damnable we believe her Religion safe that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some such as believe what they professe But we believe it not safe but very dangerous if not certainly damnable to such as professe it when they believe or if their hearts were upright and not perversly obstinate might believe the contrary Observe I pray these restraining termes which formerly you have dissembled A true Church in some sense not damnable to some men a safe way that is by Gods great mercy not damnable to some And then seeing you have pretended these confessions to be absolute which are thus plainly limited how can you avoid the imputation of an egregious Sophister You quarrell with the Doctor in the end of your Preface for using in his Book such ambiguous tearmes as these in some sort in some sense in some degree and desire him if he make any reply either to forbear them or to tell you roundly in what sort in what sense in what degree he understands these and the like mincing phrases But the truth is he hath not left them so ambiguous and undetermin'd as you pretend but told you plainly in what sense your Church may passe for a true Church viz. In regard we may hope that she retaines those truths which are simply absolutely and indispensably necessary to Salvation which may suffice to bring those good soules to heaven who wanted meanes of discovering their errors this is the charitable construction in which you may passe for a Church And to what men your Religion may be safe and your errors not damnable viz. to such whom Ignorance may excuse and therefore he hath more cause to complain of you for quoting his words without those qualifications then you to finde fault with him for using of them 30 That your Discourse in the 12. § presseth you as forcibly as Protestants I have shewed above I adde here 1. Whereas you say that faith according to rigid Calvinists is either so strong that once had it can never be lost or so more then weak and so much nothing that it can never begotten That these are words without sense Never any Calvinist affirmed that faith was so weak and so much nothing that it can never be gotten but it seemes you wanted matter to make up your Antithesis and therefore were resolved to speak empty words rather then loose your figure Crimina rasis Librat in antithetis doct as posuisse Figuras Laudatur 2. That there is no Calvinist that will deny the Truth of this proposition Christ died for all nor to subscribe to that sense of it which your Dominicans put upon it neither can you with coherence to the received Doctrine of your own Society deny that they as well as the Calvinists take away the distinction of sufficient and effectuall grace and indeed hold none to be sufficient but only that which is effectuall 3. Whereas you say They cannot make their calling certain by good workes who doe certainly believe that before any good works they are justified and justified by faith alone and by that faith whereby they certainly believe they are justified I ans There is no Protestant but believes that Faith Repentance and universall Obedience are necessary to the obtaining of Gods favour and eternall happinesse This being granted the rest is but a speculative Controversy a Question about words which would quickly vanish but that men affect not to understand one another As if a company of Physitians were in consultation and should all agree that three medicines and no more were necessary for the recovery of the Patients health this were sufficient for his direction towards the recovery of his health though concerning the proper and specificall effects of these three medicines there should be amongst them as many differences as men So likewise being generally at accord that these three things Faith Hope Charity are necessary to salvation so that whosoever wants any of them cannot obtain it and he which hath them all cannot faile of it it is not very evident that they are sufficiently agreed for mens directions to eternall Salvation And seeing Charity is a full comprehension of all good workes they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved what sense is there in saying they cannot make their calling certain by good workes They know what salvation is as well as you and have as much reason to desire it They believe it as heartily as you that there is no good worke but shall have its proper reward and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternall reward without good workes and why then may not this Doctrine be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good workes 31 You say that they certainly believe that before any good works they are iustified But this is a calumny There is no Protestant but requires to Iustification Remission of sinnes and to Remission of sinnes they all require Repentance and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good worke being indeed if it be rightly understood and according to the sense of the word in Scripture an effectuall conversion from all sinne to all holinesse But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sinnes past and a bare purpose of amendment yet even this is a good worke and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sinnes and Remission of sinnes to justification cannot with candor be pretended to believe that they are justified before any good worke 32 You say They believe themselves iustified by faith alone and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves iustified Some peradventure doe so but withall they believe that that faith which is alone and unaccompanied with sincere and universall obedience is to be esteem'd not faith but presumption and is at no hand sufficient to justification that though Charity be not imputed unto justification yet is it required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified and that though in regard of the imperfection of it no man can be justified by it yet that on the other side no man can be justified without it So that upon the whole matter a man may truly and safely say that the
truth discretion and honesty what effect it may have wrought what credit it may have gain'd with credulous Papists who dream what they desire and believe their own dreams or with ill-affected jealous and weak Protestants I can not tell But one thing I dare boldly say that you your selfe did never believe it 21 For did you indeed conceive or had any probable hope that such men as you describe men of worth of learning and authority too were friends and favourers of your Religion inclinable to your Party can any man imagine that you would proclaim it and bid the world take heed of them Sic notus Vlysses Doe we know the lesuites no better then so What are they turned prevaricators against their own Faction Are they likely men to betray and expose their own Agents and instruments and to awaken the eyes of jealousy and to raise the clamor of the people against them Certainly your Zeal to the Sea of Rome testified by your fourth Vow of speciall obedience to the Pope proper to your Order and your cunning carriage of all affairs for the greater advantage and advancement of that Sea are clear demonstrations that if you had thought thus you would never have said so The truth is they that run to extreams in opposition against you they that pull downe your infallibility and set up their own they that declaim against your tyranny and exercise it themselves over otheres are the Adversaries that give you greatest advantage and such as you love to deale with whereas upon men of temper moderatiō such as will oppose nothing because you maintain it but will draw as neere to you that they may draw you to them as the truth will suffer them such as require of Christians to believe only in Christ and will damne no man nor Doctrine without expresse and certaine warrant from gods word upon such as these you know not how to fasten but if you chance to have conference with any such which yet as much as possibly you can you avoid and decline you are very speedily put to silence and see the indefensible weaknesse of your cause laid open to all men And this I verily believe is the true reason that you thus rave and rage against them as foreseeing your time of prevailing or even of subsisting would be short if other Adversaries gave you no more advantage then they doe 22 In which perswasion also I am much confirmed by consideration of the sillynesse and poornesse of those suggestions and partly of the apparent vanity and falshood of them which you offer in justification of this wicked calumny For what if out of devotion towards God out of a desire that he should be worshipped as in Spirit and truth in the first place so also in the beauty of holinesse what if out of feare that too much simplicity and nakednesse in the publique Service of God may beget in the ordinary sort of men a dull and stupid irreverence and out of hope that the outward state and glory of it being well dispos'd and wisely moderated may ingender quicken increase and nourish the inward reverence respect and devotion which is due unto Gods Soveraign Majesty and power what if out of a perswasion and desire that Papists may be wonne over to us the sooner by the removing of this scandall out of their way and out of an holy jealousy that the weaker sort of Protestants might be the easier seduced to them by the magnificence and pomp of their Church-service in case it were not removed I say what if out of these considerations the Governors of our Church more of late then formerly have set themselves to adorn and beautifie the places where Gods honour dwells and to make them as heavenly as they can with earthly ornaments Is this a signe that they are warping towards Popery Is this Devotion in the Church of England an argument that shee is coming over to the Church of Rome Sir Edwin Sands I presume every man will grant had no inclination that way yet he forty years since highly commended this part of devotion in Papists and makes no scruple of proposing it to the imitation of Protestants Litle thinking that they who would follow his counsell and endeavour to take away this disparagement of Protestants and this glorying of Papists should have been censur'd for it as making way and inclining to Popery His words to this purpose are excellent words and because they shew plainly that what is now practis'd was approv'd by Zealous Protestants so long agoe I will here set them down 23 This one thing I cannot but highly commend in that sort and Order They spare nothing which either cost can perform in enriching or skill in adorning the Temple of God or to set out his Service with the greatest pompe and magnificence that can be devised And although for the most part much basenesse and childishnesse is predominant in the Masters and contrivers of their Ceremonies yet this outward state and glory being well disposed doth ingender quicken increase and nourish the inward reverence respect and devotion which is due unto Soveraign Majesty and Power And although I am not ignorant that many men well reputed have embraced the thrifty opinion of that Disciple who thought all to be wasted that was bestowed upon Christ in that sort and that it were much better bestowed upon him on the poor yet with an eye perhaps that themselves would be his quarter Almoners notwithstanding I must confesse it will never sink into my heart that in proportion of reason the allowance for furnishing out of the service of God should be measured by the scant and strict rule of meere necessity a proportion so low that nature to other most bountifull in matter of necessity hath not fayled no not the most ignoble creatures of the world and that for our selves no measure of heaping but the most we can get no rule of expence but to the utmost pompe we list Or that God himself had so inrich'd the lower parts of the world with such wonderfull varieties of beauty and glory that they might serve only to the pampering of mortall man in his pride and that in the Service of the high creator Lord and giver the outward glory of whose higher pallace may appear by the very lamps that we see so farre of burning gloriously in it only the simpler baser cheaper lesse noble lesse beautifull lesse glorious things should be imployed Especially seeing as in Princes courts so in the service of God also this outward state and glory being well dispos'd doth as I have said ingender quicken increase and nourish the inward reverence respect and devotion which is due to so Soveraign majesty and power Which those whom the use there of cannot perswade unto would easily by the want of it be brought to confesse for which cause I crave leave to be excused by them herein if in Zeal to the common Lord of all I choose
servants and instruments alwaies prest and in readinesse to advance your designes and disabled wholly with mindes so qualified to prejudice or impeach them it is safe for you to put a crown on their head and a reed in their hands and to bow before them cry Haile King of the Iewes to pretend a great deale of esteem and respect reverence to them as here you doe But to little purpose is verball reverence without entire submission and syncere obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye mee Lord Lord and doe not that which I command you Cast away the vaine and arrogant pretence of Infallibility which makes your errors incurable Leave picturing God and worshipping him by pictures Teach not for Doctrine the Commandments of men Debarre not the Laity of the Testament of Christs blood Let your publique Prayers and Psalmes and Hymmes be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistants Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Doe not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemnes Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledge them that dye in Christ to be blessed and to rest from their labours Acknowledge the Sacrament after consecration to be Bread and Wine as well as Christs body and blood Acknowledge the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnall such as are Massacres Treasons Persecutions and in a word all meanes either violent or fraudulent These and other things which the Scripture commands you doe and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve but till you doe so to talk of estimation respect and reverence to the Scripture is nothing else but talk 2 For neither is that true which you pretend That we possesse the Scripture from you or take it upon the integrity of your Custody but upon Vniversall Tradition of which you are but a little part Neither if it were true that Protestants acknowledged The integrity of it to have been guarded by your alone Custody were this any argument of your reverence towards them For first you might preserve them entire not for want of Will but of Power to corrupt them as it is a hard thing to poyson the Sea And then having prevailed so farre with men as either not to look at all into them or but only through such spectacles as you should please to make for them and to see nothing in them though as cleere as the sunne if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conforme your doctrine to them or reforme it by them which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures but out of a perswasion that you could qualify them well enough with your glosses and interpretations and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrine at least in their judgement who were preposses'd with this perswasion that your Church was to judge of the sense of Scripture not to be judged by it 3. For whereas you say No cause imaginable could avert your will from giving the function of supreme and sole Iudge to holy writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this meanes controversies are encreased and not ended you mean perhaps That you can or will imagine no other cause but these But sure there is little Reason you should measure other mens imaginations by your own who perhaps may be so clouded and vail'd with prejudice that you cannot or will not see that which is most manifest For what indifferent and unprejudicate man may not easily conceive another cause which I doe not say does but certainly may pervert your wills and avert your understandings from submitting your religion and Church to a tryall by Scripture I mean the great and apparent and unavoidable danger which by this meanes you would fall into of loosing the Opinion which men have of your Infallibility and consequently your power and authority over mens consciences and all that depends upon it so that though Diana of the Ephesians be cryed up yet it may be feared that with a great many among you though I censure or judge no man the other cause which wrought upon Demetrius and the Craftsmen may have with you also the more effectuall though more secret influence and that is that by this craft we have our living by this craft I mean of keeping your Proselytes from an indifferent tryall of your Religion by Scripture and making them yeeld up and captivate their judgement unto yours Yet had you only said de facto that no other cause did avert your own will from this but only these which you pretend out of Charity I should have believed you But seeing you speak not of your selfe but of all of your side whose hearts you cannot know and professe not only That there is no other cause but that No other is imaginable I could not let this passe without a censure As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole judge of Controversies that is the sole rule for man to Iudge them by for we mean nothing else you only affirme it without proofe as if the thing were evident of it selfe And therefore I conceiving the contrary to be more evident might well-content my selfe to deny it without refutation Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me If Scripture cannot be the Iudge of any Controversy how shall that touching the Church and the notes of it be determined And if it be the sole judge of this one why may it not of others Why not of All Those only excepted wherein the Scripture it selfe is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by naturall reason the only principle beside Scripture which is common to Christians 4 Then for the Imputation of increasing contentions and not ending them Scripture is innocent of it as also this opinion That controversies are to be decided by Scripture For if men did really and sincerely submit their judgements to Scripture and that only and would require no more of any man but to doe so it were impossible but that all controversies touching things necessary and very profitable should be ended and if others were continued or increased it were no matter 5 In the next wordes we have direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgement made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledge say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule only wee deny that it excludes unwritten tradition A siâ— you should have said we acknowledge it to be as perfect a rule as a writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a rule as a writing may be Either therefore you must revoke your acknowledgement or retract your
this function the same exceptions at least if not more and greater lying against them as doe against Scripture And then what you object against the holy Ghost speaking in Scripture to exclude him from this office The same I returne upon them and their decrees to debarre them from it that they speaking unto us only in their decrees are no more intelligible then the decrees in which they speak And therefore if the Holy Ghost speaking in Scripture may not be a judge for this reason neither may they speaking in their decrees be judges for the same Reason If the Popes decrees you will say be obscure he can explain himselfe and so the Scripture cannot But the holy Ghost that speaks in Scripture can doe so if he please and when he is pleas'd will doe so In the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leasure and to be content that those things of Scripture which are plain should be so and those which are obscure should remain obscure untill he please to declare them Besides he can which you cannot warrant me of the Pope or a Councell speak at first so plainly that his words shall need no farther explanation and so in things necessary we believe he has done And if you say the Decrees of Councells touching Controversies though they be not the Iudge yet they are the Iudges sentence So I say the Scripture though not the Iudge is the sentence of the Iudge When therefore you conclude That to say a Iudge is necessary for deciding controversies about the meaning of Scripture is as much as to say he is necessary to decide what the holy Ghost speakes in Scripture This I grant is true but I may not grant that a Iudge such a one as we dispute of is necessary either to doe the one or the other For if the Scripture as it is in things necessary be plain why should it be more necessary to have a judge to interpret them in plain places then to have a judge to interpret the meaning of a Councell's decrees and others to interpret their Interpretations and others to interpret theirs and so on for ever And where they are not plaine there if we using diligence to finde the truth doe yet misse of it and fall into errour there is no danger in it They that erre and they that doe not erre may both be saved So that those places which containe things necessary and wherein errour were dangerous need no infallible interpreter because they are plaine and those that are obscure need none because they contain not things necessary neither is errour in them dangerous 13 The Law-maker speaking in the Law I grant it is no more easily understood then the Law it selfe for his speech is nothing else but the Law I grant it very necessary that besides the Law-maker speaking in the Law there should be other Iudges to determine civill and criminall Controversies and to giue every man that Iustice which the Law allowes him But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessitie of a visible Iudge in Controversies of Religion I say is Sophisticall and that for many Reasons 14 First Because the variety of Civill cases is infinite and therefore there cannot be possibly Lawes enough provided for the determination of them and therefore there must be a Iudge to supply out of the Principles of Reason the interpretation of the Law where it is defectiue But the Scripture we say is a perfect Rule of Faith and therefore needs no supply of the defects of it 15 Secondly To execute the Letter of the Law according to rigour would be many times unjust and therefore there is need of a Iudge to moderate it whereof in Religion there is no use at all 16 Thirdly In Civill and Criminall causes the parties haue for the most part so much interest and very often so little honesty that they will not submit to a Law though never so plaine if it bee against them or will not see it to be against them though it be so never so plainly whereas if men were honest and the Law were plaine and extended to all cases there would be little need of Iudges Now in matters of Religion when the Question is whether every man bee a fit Iudge and chooser for himselfe we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity And such men we conceiue will think it highly concernes them to be of the true Religion but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true And then wee suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plaine and easie consequently every man in this cause to be a competent Iudge for himselfe because it concernes himselfe to judge right as much as eternall happinesse is worth And if through his own default he judge amisse he alone shall suffer for it 17 Fourthly In Civill Controversies we are obliged only to externall passiue obedience and not to an internall and actiue Wee are bound to obey the sentence of the Iudge or not to resist it but not alwaies to belieue it just But in matters of Religion such a judge is required whom we should be obliged to belieue to haue judged right So that in Civill Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Iudge But in religion none but he that is infallible 18 Fiftly In Civill Causes there is meanes and power when the Iudge has decreed to compell men to obey his sentence otherwise I belieue Laws alone would be to as much purpose for the ending of differences as Lawes and Iudges both But all the power in the world is neither fit to convince nor able to compell a mans conscience to consent to any thing Worldly terrour may prevaile so far as to make men professe a Religion which they belieue not such men I meane who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs and a Hell for those that dissemble such truths as are necessary to bee professed But to force either any man to belieue what he belieues not or any honest man to dissemble what he does beleiue if God commands him to professe it or to professe what he does not belieue all the Powers in the World are too weak with all the powers of Hell to assist them 19 Sixtly In Civill Controversies the case cannot be so put but there may be a Iudge to end it who is not a party In Controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to bee avoided but the Iudge must be a partie For this must be the first whether hee be a judge or no and in that he must be a partie Sure I am the Pope in the controversies of our time is a chiefe partie for it highly concernes him even as much as his Popedome is worth not to yeeld any one point of his Religion to be erroneous And hee is a man subject to like passions with other men And therefore we
may justly decline his sentence for feare temporall respects should either blinde his judgement or make him pronounce against it 20 Seaventhly In Civill Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plaintiffe must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plaintiffe by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my opinion and doe you no wrong and you yours and doe mee none Nay we may both of us hold our opinion and yet doe our selues no harme provided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation and that we loue truth so well as to bee diligent to informe our Conscience and constant in following it 21 Eightly For the ending of Civill Controversies who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only Iudges should bee appointed but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are Thus all the Iudges of our Land are known men known to be Iudges and no man can doubt or question but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing who were these Iudges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority but only some Topicall congruities would not any man say such Iudges in all likelyhood would rather multiply Controversies then end them 22 Ninthly and lastly For the deciding of Civill Controversies men may appoint themselues a judge But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it who doth not alwaies giue us those things which we conceiue most expedient for our selues 23 So likewise if our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some Visible Iudge finally determined who can doubt but in plaine termes hee would haue expressed himselfe about this matter He would haue said plainely The Bishop of Rome I haue appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour design'd the Bishop of Rome to this Office yet would not say so nor cause it to be written ad Rei memoriam by any of the Evangelists or Apostles so much as once but leaue it to bee drawn out of uncertain Principles by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain consequences He that can beleiue it let him All these Reasons I hope will convince you that though we haue and haue great necessity of Iudges in Civill and Criminall causes yet you may not conclude from thence that there is any publique authoriz'd Iudge to determine Controversies in Religion nor any necessity there should be any 24 But the Scripture stands in need of some watchfull and unerring eye to guard it by meanes of whose assured vigilancy we may undoubtedly receiue it syncere and pure Very true but this is no other then the watchfull eye of divine providence the goodnesse whereof will never suffer that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted but that in them should be alwaies extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternall happinesse Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodnesse then to suffer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment and yet to exact of men the beliefe of those verities which without their fault or knowledge or possibility of prevention were defac'd out of them So that God requiring of men to belieue Scripture in its purity ingages himselfe to see it preserv'd in sufficient purity and you need not feare but he will satisfie his ingagement You say we can haue no assurance of this but your Churches Vigilancie But if we had no other we were in a hard case for who could then assure us that your Church has been so vigilant as to guard Scripture from any the least alteration There being various Lections in the ancient copies of your Bibles what security can your new rail'd Office of Assurance giue us that that reading is true which you now receiue and that false which you reject Certainly they that anciently received and made use of these divers Copies were not all guarded by the Churches vigilancy from having their Scripture alter'd from the puritie of the Originall in many places For of different readings it is not in nature impossible that all should bee false but more then one cannot possibly be true Yet the want of such a protection was no hinderance to their salvation and why then shall the having of it be necessary for ours But then this Vigilancy of your Church what meanes haue we to be ascertain'd of it First the thing is not evident of it selfe which is evident because many doe not belieue it Neither can any thing be pretended to giue evidence to it but only some places of Scripture of whose incorruption more then any other what is it that can secure me If you say the Churches vigilancy you are in a Circle proving the Scriptures uncorrupted by the Churches vigilancy the Churches vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture and againe the incorruption of those places by the Churches vigilancy If you name any other meanes then that meanes which secures mee of the Scriptures incorruption in those places will also serue to assure me of the same in other places For my part abstracting from Divine Providence which will never suffer the way to Heaven to bee block'd up or made invisible I know no other meanes I meane no other naturall and rationall meanes to be assured hereof then I haue that any other Book is uncorrupted For though I haue a greater degree of rationall and humane Assurance of that then this in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible That the Scripture hath been preserv'd from any materiall alteration yet my assurance of both is of the same kinde and condition both Morall assurances and neither Physicall or Mathematicall 25 To the next Argument the Reply is obvious That though we doe not belieue the books of Scripture to be Canonicall because they say so For other books that are not Canonicall may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it yet we belieue not this upon the authority of your Church but upon the Credibilitie of Vniversall Tradition which is a thing Credible of it selfe and therefore fit to bee rested on whereas the Authority of your Church is not so And therefore your rest thereon is not rationall but meerly voluntary I might as well rest upon the judgement of the next man I meet or upon the chance of a Lottery for it For by this meanes I only know I might erre but by relying on you I know I should erre But yet to returne you one suppose for another suppose I should for this and all other things submit to her direction how could shee assure mee that I should not be mis-led by doing so She pretends indeed infallibility herein but how can she assure us that she hath it What by Scriptureâ—
the deniall of this Fundamentall truth that all which God saies is true Notwithstanding in themselues there is a main difference between them Points fundamentall being those onely which are revealed by God and commanded to bee preacht to all and believed by all Points circumstantiall being such as though God hath revealed them yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under paine of damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where and the people may be securely ignorant of them 21 You say Not erring in points Fundamentall is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church because any Errour maintained by it against Gods revelation is destructive I answer If you mean against Gods Revelation known by the Church to be so it is true but impossible that the Church should doe so for ipso Facto in doing it it were a Church no longer But if you mean against some Revelation which the Church by errour thinks to bee no Revelation it is false The Church may ignorantly disbelieue such a Revelation and yet continue a Church which thus I proue That the Gospell was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascention in these words Goe and teach all Nations Mat. 29. 19. Yet through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause the Church disbelieved it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts untill the conversion of Cornelius and yet was still a Church Therefore to disbelieue some divine Revelation not knowing it to be so is not destructive of salvation or of the being of the Church Again It is a plaine Revelation of God that the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kindes and that the publique Hymnes and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing by reason of the veile before their eyes their Churches supposed infallibility I hope the deniall of them shall not be laid to their charge no otherwise then as building hay and stubble on the Foundations not overthrowing the Foundation it selfe 22 Ad § 2. In the beginning of this Paragraph wee haue this Argument against this Distinction It is enough by D. Potters confession to belieue some things negatiuely i. e. not to deny them Therefore all deniall of any divine truth excludes Salvation As if you should say One Horse is enough for a man to goe a journey Therefore without a horse no man can goe a journey As if some Divine Truthes viâ— Those which are plainly revealed might not be such as of necessity were not to be denied and others for want of sufficient declaration deniable without danger Indeed if D. Potter had said there had been no divine Truth declared sufficiently or not declared but must upon pain of damnation be believed or at least not denied then might you justly haue concluded as you doe but now that some may not be denied and that some may be denied without damnation why they may not both stand together I doe not yet understand 23 In the Remainder you in ferre out of D. Potters words That all errours are alike damnable if the manner of propounding the contrary Truths be not different which for ought I know all Protestants and all that haue sense must grant Yet I deny your illation from hence That the distinction of points into fundamentall and unfundamentall is vaine and uneffectuall for the purpose of Protestants For though being alike propos'd as divine truths they are by accident alike necessary yet the reall difference still remaines between them that they are not alike necessary to be proposed 24 Ad § 5. The next Paragraph if it be brought out of the clouds will I belieue haue in it these Propositions 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures 2. The Nature of Faith is taken not from the matter believed for then they that believed different matters should haue different Faiths but from the Motive to it 3. This Motiue is Gods Revelation 4. This Revelation is alike for all obiects 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God Therefore they forsake the formall motiue of faith and therefore haue no faith nor unity therein Which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up â— weak discourse wherein both the Propositions are false for matter confused and disordered for the forme and the conclusion utterly inconsequent First for the second Proposition who knowes not that the Essence of all Habits therefore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be generall from the Act and Object in generall if the Habit be speciall from the Act and Object in speciall Then for the motiue to a thing that it cannot be of the Essence of the thing to which it moues who can doubt that knows that a motiue is an efficient cause and that the efficient is alwaies extrinsecall to the effect For the fourth that Gods Revelation is alike for all objects It is ambiguous and if the sense of it be that his Revelation is an equall Motive to induce us to belieue all objects revealed by him it is true but impertinent If the sense of it be that all objects revealed by God are alike that is alike plainly and undoubtedly revealed by him it is pertinent but most untrue Witnesse the great diversity of Texts of Scripture whereof some are so plain and evident that no man of ordinary sense can mistake the sense of them Some are so obscure and ambiguous that to say this or this is the certain sense of them were high presumption For the 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God! In themselues perhaps but not equally to them whose understandings by reason of their different Educations are fashioned and shaped for the entertainment of various opinions and consequently some of them more enclined to belieue such a sense of Scripture others to belieue another which to say that God will not take into his consideration in judging mens opinions is to disparage his goodnesse But to what purpose is it that these things are equally revealed to both as the light is equally revealed to all blind men if they be not fully revealed to either The sense of this Scripture Why are they then baptiz'd for the dead and this He shall bee saved yet so as by fire and a thousand others is equally revealed to you and to another interpreter that is certainly to neither Hee now conceiues one sense of them and you another and would it not be an excellent inference if I should conclude now as you doe That you forsake the formall motiue of faith which is Gods revelation and consequently loose all faith and unity therein So likewise the Iesuites and Dominicans the Franciscans and Dominicans disagree about things equaâ—ly revealed by Almighty God and seeing they doe so I beseech you let me understand
of S. Austin of them diversorum locorum diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur and apparent because the stream of them was grown so violent that he durst not opopose it liberiùs improbare non audeâ— I dare not freely speak against them So that to say the Catholique Church tolerated all this and for fear of offence durst not abrogate or condemne it is to say if we judge rightly of it that the Church with silence and connivence generally tolerated Christians to worship God in vain Now how this tolerating of Vniversall superstition in the Church can consist with the assistance and direction of Gods omnipotent spirit to guard it from superstition with the accomplishment of that pretended prophecy of the Church I have set watchmen upon thy walls O Ierusalem which shall never hold their peace day nor night besides how these superstitions being thus noutished cherished and strengthened by the practise of the most and urged with great violence upon others as the commandements of God and but fearfully opposed or contradicted by any might in time take such deepe roote and spread their branches so farre as to passe for universall Customes of the Church he that does not see sees nothing Especially considering the catching and contagious nature of this sinne and how fast ill weeds spread and how true and experimented that rule is of the Historian Exempla non consistunt ubi incipiunt sed quamlibâ—t in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem Nay that some such superstition had not already even in S. Austins time prevailed so farre as to be Consâ—etudine universae Ecclesiae roboratum who can doubt that considers that the practise of Communicating Infants had even then got the credit and authority not only of an uniuersall Custome but also of an Apostolique Tradition 48 But you will say notwithstanding all this S. Austin here warrants us that the Church can never either approue or dissemble or practise any thing against faith or goodlife and so long you may rest securely upon it Yea but the same S. Austine tels us in the same place that the Church may tolerate humane presumptions and vain superstitions and those urg'd more severely then the Commandements of God And whether superstition be a sinne or no I appeal to our Saviours words before cited and to the consent of your Schoolmen Besides if we consider it rightly we shall finde that the Church is not truly said only to tolerate these things but rather that a part and farre the lesser tolerated and dissembled them in silence and a part a farre greater publiquely vowed and practis'd them and urg'd them upon others with great violence and that continued still a part of the Church Now why the whole Church might not continue the Church and yet doe so as well as a part of the Church might continue a part of it and yet doe so I desire you to inform me 49 But now after all this adoe what if S. Austine saies not this which is pretended of the Church viz. That she neither approues nor dissembles nor practises any thing against Faith or good life but onely of good men in the Church Certainly though some Copies read as you would haue it yet you should not haue dissembled that others read the place otherwise viz. Ecclesia multa tolerat tamen quae sunt contra Fidem bonam vitam nec bonus approbat c. The Church tolerates many things and yet what is against faith or good life a good man will neither approue nor dissemble nor practise 50 Ad § 17. That Abraham begat Isaac is a point very far from being Fundamentall and yet I hope you will grant that Protestants believing Scripture to be the word of God may bee certain enough of the truth and certainty of it For what if they say that the Catholique Church and much more themselues may possibly erre in some unfundamentall points is it therefore consequent they can be certaine of none such What if a wiser man then I may mistake the sense of some obscure place of Aristotle may I not therefore without any arrogance or inconsequence conceiue my selfe certain that I understand him in some plain places which carry their sense before them And then for points Fundamentall to what purpose doe you say That we must first know what they be before we can be assured that wee cannot erre in understanding the Scripture when we pretend not at all to any assurance that we cannot erre but only to a sufficient certainty that we doe not erre but rightly understand those things that are plain whether Fundamentall or not Fundamentall That God is and is a rewarder of them that seek him That there is no salvation but by faith in Christ That by repentance and faith in Christ Remission of sinnes may be obtained That there shall be a Resurrection of the Body These wee conceive both true because the Scripture saies so and Truths Fundamentall because they are necessary parts of the Gospell whereof our Saviour saies Qui non crediderit damnabitur All which we either learne from Scripture immediately or learne of those that learne it of Scripture so that neither Learned nor Vnlearned pretend to know these things independently of Scripture And therefore in imputing this to us you cannot excuse your selfe from having done us a palpable injury 51 Ad § 18. And I urge you as mainly as you urge D. Potter other Protestants that you tell us that all the Traditions and all the Definitions of the Church are FundameÌ„tal points we cannot wrest from you a list in particular of all such Traditions and Definitions without which no man can tell whether or no he erre in points fundamentall and be capable of salvation For I hope erring in our fundamentals is no more exclusiue of salvation theÌ„ erring in yours And which is most lamentable insteed of giving us such a Catalogue you also fall to wrangle among your selues about the making of it Some of you as I haue said aboue holding somethings to be matters of Faith which others deny to be so 52 Ad § 19. I answ That these differences between Protestants concerning Errours damnable and not damnable Truths fundamentall and not fundamentall may be easily reconcil'd For either the Errour they speak of may be purely and simply involuntary or it may be in respect of the cause of it voluntary If the cause of it be some voluntary and avoidable fault the Errour is it selfe sinfull and consequently in its own nature damnable As if by negligence in seeking the Truth by unwillingnesse to finde it by pride by obstinacy by desiring that Religion should be true which sutes best with my ends by feare of mens ill opinion or any other worldly feare or any other worldly hope I betray my selfe to any error contrary to any divine revealed Truth that Errour may be justly stiled a sinne and consequently of it selfe to
such a one damnable But if I be guilty of none of these faults but be desirous to know the Truth and diligent in seeking it and advise not at all with flesh bloud about the choice of my opinions but only with God that Reason that he hath given me if I be thus qualifi'd and yet through humane infirmity fall into errour that errour cannot be damnable Again the party erring may be conceived either to dye with contrition for all his sins known and unknown or without it If he dye without it this errour in it selfe damnable will bee likewise so unto him If he dye with contrition as his errour can bee no impediment but he may his errour though in it selfe damnable to him according to your doctrine will not proue so And therefore some of those Authors whom you quote speaking of Errours whereunto men were betrayed or wherein they were kept by their Fault or Vice or Passion as for the most part men are Others speaking of them as errours simply and purely involuntary and the effects of humane infirmity some as they were retracted by Contrition to use your own phrase others as they were not no marvell though they haue past upon them some a heavier some a milder some an absolving some a condemning sentence The best of all these errours which here you mention having malice enough too frequently mixed with it to sink a man deep enough into hell and the greatest of them all being according to your Principles either no fault at all or very Veniall where there is no malice of the will conjoyn'd with it And if it be yet as the most malignant poyson will not poison him that receives with it a more powerfull Antidote so I am confident your own Doctrine will force you to confesse that whosoever dies with Faith in Christ and Contrition for all sinnes known and unknown in which heap all his sinfull errours must be compriz'd can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent errour then S. Paul by the viper which he shook of into the fire Now touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works and Faith in Christ Iesus the Sonne of God and Saviour of the World they all agree and therefore you cannot deny but they agree about all that is simply necessary Moreover though if they should goe about to choose out of Scripture all these Propositions Doctrines which integrate and make up the body of Christian Religion peradventure there would not be so exact agreement amongst them as some say there was between the 70. Interpreters in translating the Old Testament yet thus far without controversie they doe all agree that in the Bible all these things are contained and therefore that whosoever does truly and sincerely believe the Scripture must of necessity either in hypothesi or at least in thesi either formally or at least virtually either explicitely or at least implicitely either in Act or at least in preparation of minde belieue all things Fundamentall It being not Fundamentall nor required of Almighty God to belieue the true sense of Scripture in all places but only that we should endeavour to doe so be prepar'd in minde to doe so whensoever it shall be sufficiently propounded to us Suppose a man in some disease were prescribed a medicine consisting of twenty ingredients and he advising with Physitians should finde them differing in opinion about it some of them telling him that all the ingredients were absolutely necessary some that only some of them were necessary the rest only profitable and requisite ad melius esse lastly some that some only were necessary some profitable and the rest superfluous yet not hurtfull Yet all with one accord agreeing in this That the whole receipt had in it all things necessary for the recovery of his health and that if hee made use of it hee should infallibly finde it successefull what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health lust so these Protestant Doctors with whose discords you make such Tragedies agreeing in Thesi thus far that the Scripture evidently containes all things necessary to Salvation both for matter of Faith and of practise and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to finde the true sense of it and to conform his life unto it shall certainly performe all things necessary to salvation and undoubtedly be saved agreeing I say thus farre what matters it for the direction of men to salvation though they differ in opinion touching what points are absolutely necessary and what not What Errours absolutely repugnant to Salvation and what not Especially considering that although they differ about the Question of the necessity of these Truths yet for the most part they agree in this that Truths they are and profitable at least though not simply necessary And though they differ in the Question whether the contrary Errours be destructive of salvation or no yet in this they consent that Errours they are hurtful to Religion though not destructive of Salvation Now that which God requires of us is this That we should belieue the Doctrines of the Gospell to bee Truths not all necessary Truths for all are not so and consequently the repugnant Errours to be falshoods yet not all such falshoods as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them for all doe not so 53 Yea but you say it is very requisite we should agree upon a particular Catalogue of Fundamentall points for without such a Catalogue no man can be assured whether or no he hath faith sufficient to salvation This I utterly deny as a thing evidently false and I wonder you should content your selfe magisterially to say so without offering any proof of it I might much more justly think it enough barely to deny it without refutation but I will not Thus therefore I argue against it Without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals I may be assured of the Truth of this Assertion if it be true That the Scripture containes all necessary points of faith and know that I belieue explicitely all that is exprest in Scripture and implicitely all that is contained in them Now he that belieues all this must of necessity believe all things necessary Therefore without being able to make a Catalogue of Fundamentals I may be assured that I belieue all things necessary and consequently that my faith is sufficient I said of the truth of this Assertion if it be true Because I will not here enter into the Question of the truth of it it being sufficient for my present purpose that it may be true and may be believed without any dependance upon a Catalogue of Fundamentalls And therefore if this be all your reason to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentalls we cannot but think your demand unreasonable Especially having your selfe expressed the cause of the difficulty of it and that is Because Scripture doth deliver Divine Truths
shew or shadow of Reason and an evident sophisme grounded upon an affected mistake of the sense of the word Fundamentall 49 The first untruth is that D. Potter makes a Church of men agreeing scarcely in one point of faith of men concurring in some one or few Articles of belief and in the rest holding conceits plainly contradictory Agreeing only in this one Article that Christ is our Saviour but for the rest like to the parts of a Chimaera c. Which I say is a shamelesse calumny not only because D. Potter in this point delivers not his own judgement but relates the opinion of others M. Hooker and M. Morton but especially because even these men as they are related by D. Potter to the constituting of the very essence of a Church in the lowest degree require not only Faith in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Saviour of the World but also submission to his Doctrine in mind and will Now I beseech you Sir tell me ingenuously whether the doctrine of Christ may be called without blasphemy scarcely one point of Faith or whether it consists only of some one or few Articles of belief Or whether there be nothing in it but only this Article That Christ is our Saviour Is it not manifest to all the world that Christians of all Professions doe agree with one consent in the belief of all those Bookes of Scripture which were not doubted of in the ancient Church without danger of damnation Nay is it not apparent that no man at this time can without hypocrisy pretend to believe in Christ but of necessity he must doe so Seeing he can have no reason to believe in Christ but he must have the same to believe the Scripture I pray then read over the Scripture once more or if that be too much labour the New Testament only and then say whether there be nothing there but scarcely one point of Faith But some one or two Articles of beleif Nothing but this Article onely that Christ is our Saviour Say whether there be not there an infinite number of Divine Verities Divine precepts Divine promises and those so plainly and undoubtedly delivered that if any sees them not it cannot be because he cannot but because he will not So plainly that whosoever submits syncerely to the doctrine of Christ in mind and will cannot possibly but submit to these in act and performance And in the rest which it hath pleased God for reasons best known to himselfe to deliver obscurely or ambiguously yet thus farre at least they agree that the sense of them intended by God is certainly true and that they are without passion or prejudice to endeavour to find it out The difference only is which is that true sense which God intended Neither would this long continue if the walls of separation whereby the Divell hopes to make their Divisions eternall were pulled down and errour were not supported against Truth by humane advantages But for the present God forbid the matter should be so ill as you make it For whereas you looking upon their points of difference and agreement through I know not what strange glasses have made the first innumerable and the other scarce a number the truth is clean contrary That those divine Verities Speculative and Practicall wherein they universally agree which you will have to be but a few or but one or scarcely one amount to many millions i◠an exact account were taken of them And on the other side the Ponts in variance are in comparison but few and those not of such a quality but the Error in them may well consist with the belief obedience of the entire Covenant ratified by Christ between God and man Yet I would not be so mistaken as if I thought the errours even of some Protestants unconsiderable things and matters of no moment For the truth is I am very fearfull that some of their opinions either as they are or as they are apt to be mistaken though not of themselves so damnable but that good and holy men may be saved with thē yet are too frequent occasions of our remisnes and slacknesse in running the race of Christian Profession of our deferring Repentance and conversion to God of our frequent relapses into sinne not seldome of security in sinning consequently though not certain causes yet too frequent occasions of many mens damnation and such I conceive all these doctrines which either directly or obliquely put men in hope of eternall happinesse by any other means saving only the narrow way of sincere and universall obedience grounded upon a true and lively faith These Errours therefore I doe not elevate or extenuate and on condition the ruptures made by them might be composed doe heartily wish that the cement were made of my deerest blood and only not to be an Anathema from Christ Only this I say that neither are their points of agreement so few nor their differences so many as you make them nor so great as to exclude the opposite Parties from being members of one Church Militant joynt heires of the glory of the Church Triumphant 50 Your other palpable untruth is that Protestants are farre more bold to disagree even in matters of faith then Catholique Divines you mean your own in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For neither doe they differ at all in matters of faith if you take the word in the highest sense and mean by matters of faith such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to Salvation to be believed or not to be disbelieved And then in those wherein they doe differ with what colour or shadow of Argument can you make good that they are more bold to disagree then you are in Questions meerely Philosophicall or not determined by the Church For is there not as great repugnancy between your assent and dissent your affirmation and negation your Est Est Non Non as there is between theirs You follow your Reason in those things wich are not determined by your Church and they theirs in things not plainly determined in Scripture And wherein then consists their greater their farre greater boldnesse And what if they in their contradictory opinions pretend both to rely upon the truth of God doth this make their contradictions ever a whit the more repugnant I had alwaies thought that all contradictions had been equally contradictions and equally repugnant because the least of them are as farre asunder as Est and Non Est can make them and the greatest are no farther But then you in your differences by name about Predetermination the Immaculate Conception the Popes Infallibility upon what other motive doe you rely Doe not you cite Scripture or Tradition or both on both sides And doe you not pretend that both these are the infallible Truths of Almighty God 51 You close up this Section with a fallacy proving forsooth that we destroy by our confession the Church which is the house of God
to believe as all Antiquity hath taught us That whosoever either beginnes or continues a division for the Roman Church which we haue proved to be Christs true Militant Church on earth cannot without effectuall repentance hope to be a member of his Triumphant Church in heaven And so I conclude with these words of blessed S. Augustine It is common to all Heretiques to be unable to see that thing which in the world is the most manifest and placed in the light of all Nations out of whose Vnity whatsoever they work though they seem to doe it with great care and diligence can no more availe them against the wrath of God then the Spiders web against the extremity of cold But now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of Division from the Church which is by Heresie THE ANSVVER TO THE FIFTH CHAPTER The separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon iust and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schisme 1 AD § 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In the seaven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue deserue a censure As 2 First That Schisme could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unlesse there alwaies had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falshood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schisme might now be and be a Division from the present visible Church As though in France there never had been untill now a lawfull Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Soveraigne authority 3 That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithfull people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithfull as it is plain you doe free from all errour in faith then you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to bee false and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question 4 That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schisme it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this division must be so likewise Which is not so certaine as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civill or Ecclesiasticall doe commit a great fault whereof notwithanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus haue I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-countrey men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithfull maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the K. of Spaine 5 Fourthly That all those which a Christian is to esteeme neighbours doe concurre to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteeme those his neighbours who are not members of the true Church 6 Fiftly That all the members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mysticall body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7 Sixtly That the Catholique Church signifies one company of faithfull people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the visible Church 8 Seaventhly That every Heretique is a Schismatique Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some point professed by your Church and so are Heretiques yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9 Eightly That all the members of the Catholique Church must of necessity be united in externall Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches communion yet he is still a member of the Church and divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrisostome and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued members of the Catholique Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shewe or pretence of proofe The rest is an impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcern'd And therefore I passe to the eighth Section 10 Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double Fallacie One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood which yet are maintained by more then thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases For whereas you say S. Austine c. 62. l. 2. cont Parm. infers out of the former premises That there is no necessity to divide Vnity to let passe your want of diligence in quoting the 62. chapter of that Booke which hath but 23. in it to passe by also that these words which are indeed in the 11. Chapt. are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend this I say is evident that he saies not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide Vnity which only were for your purpose but only in such a speciall cale as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can doe thē no spirituall hurt to the intent they may not be seperated from those who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Vnity Which very words doe cleerely give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Vnity with bad men without spirituall hurt i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austines mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book where to Parmenian demanding how can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted He answers Very true this is not possible if he be ioyned with them that is if he commit any evill with them or favour them which doe commit it But if he doe neither of these he is not ioyned with them
reason is alike for all erres in many things are of necessity to forsake that Church in the Profession and practice of those errors 105 But to consider your exception to this speech of the Doctors somewhat more particularly I say your whole discourse against it is compounded of falsehoods and impertinencies The first falsehood is that he in these words avoucheth that no learned Catholiques can be saved Vnlesse you will suppose that all learned Catholiques are convinc'd in conscience that your Church erres in many things It may well be fear'd that many are so convinc'd and yet professe what they believe not Many more have been and have stifled their consciences by thinking it an act of humility to doe so Many more would have beene had they with liberty and indifference of judgement examined the grounds of the Religion which they professe But to think that all the Learned of your side are actually convinc'd of errors in your Church and yet will not forsake the profession of them this is so great an uncharitablenesse that I verily believe D. Potter abhorres it Your next falsehood is That the Doctor affirmes that you Catholiques want no meanes to Salvation and that he judges the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamentall or damnable Which calumny I have very often confuted and in this very place it is confuted by D. Potter and confessed by your selfe For in the beginning of this Answer you tell us that the Doctor avouches of all Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse that they cannot be saved Certainly then he must needs esteeme them to want something necessary to Salvation And then in the Doctors saying it is remarkable that he confesses your errors to some men not damnable which cleerely imports that according to his judgement they were damnable in themselves though by accident to them who lived and died in invincible ignorance and with repentance they might prove not damnable A third is that these Assertions the Roman Errors are in themselves not damnable and yet it is damnable for me who know them to be errors to hold and confesse them are absolutely inconsistent which is false for be the matter what it will yet for a man to tell a lye especially in matter of Religion cannot but be damnable How much more then to goe on in a course of lying by professing to believe these things divine Truths which he verily believes to be falsehoods and fables A fourth is that if we erred in thinking that your Church holds errors this error or erroneous conscience might be rectifyed and deposed by judging those errors not damnable For what repugnance is there between these two suppositions that you doe hold some errors and that they are not damnable And if there be no repugnance between them how can the beleefe of the latter remove or destroy or if it be erroneous rectify the belief of the former Nay seeing there is a manifest consent between them how can it be avoided but the belief of the latter will maintaine and preserve the belief of the former For who can conjoyne in one braine not crackt pardon me if I speake to you in your own words these Assertions In the Roman Church there are errors not damnable and in the Roman Church there are no errors at all Or what sober understanding would ever think this a good collection I esteeme the errors of the Roman Church not damnable therefore I doe amisse to think that she erres at all If therefore you would have us alter our judgements that your Church is erroneous your only way is to shew your doctrine consonant at least not evidently repugnant to Scripture and Reason For as for this device this short cut of perswading our selves that you hold no errours because we believe your errors are not damnable assure your selfe it will never hold 106 A fift falsehood is That we daily doe this favour for Protestants you must mean if you speak consequently to judge they have no errors because we judge they have none damnable Which the world knowes to be most untrue And for our continuing in their communion notwithstanding their errors the justification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beliefe and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion Which puts a main difference between them and you because we may continue in their communion without professing to believe their opinions but in yours we cannot A sixt is that according to the Doctrine of all Divines there is any difference between a speculative perswasion of conscience of the unlawfulnesse of any thing and a practicall Dictamen that the same thing is unlawfull For these are but diverse words signifying the same thing neither is such a perswasion wholly speculative but tending to practice nor such a dictamē wholly practicall but grounded upon speculation A Seventh is That Protestants did only conceive in speculation that the Church of Rome erred in some doctrines and had not also a practicall dictamen that it was damnable for them to continue in the profession of these errors An eighth is that it is not lawfull to separate from any Churches communion for errors not appertaining to the substance of Faith which is not universally true but with this exception unlesse that Church requires the belief and profession of them The ninth is that D. Potter teacheth that Luther was bound to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light Confuted manifestly by D. Potter in this very place for by the house of God you mean the Roman Church and of her the Doctor saies that a necessity did lye upon him even under pain of damnation to forsake the Church of Rome in her errors This sure is not to say that he was obliged to forsake her for an unnecessary light The tenth is covertly vented in your intimation that Luther and his followers were the proper cause of the Christian worlds combustion Whereas indeed the true cause of this lamentable effect was your violent persecution of them for serving God according to their conscience which if it be done to you you condemne of horrible impiety and therefore may not hope to be excused if you doe it to others 107 The eleaventh is that our first reformers ought to have doubted whether their opinions were certain Which is to say that they ought to have doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes containes many of these opinions And the reason of this assertion is very vaine for though they had not an absolute infallibility promised unto them yet may they be of some things infallibly certaine As Euclide sure was not infallible yet was he certain enough that twice two were foure and that every whole was greater then a part of that whole And so though Calvin Melancthō were not infallible in all things yet they might and did know well enough that your Latine Service was condemned by S.
that although the Waldenses Wicliffe c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrine yet they could not bragge of Succession from them because their doctrine hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 24 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrine cannot stand with that Vniversality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sectâ— which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Vniversality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such locall multiplication doth more more lay open their division want of Succession in Doctrine For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words out of the Prophet Ezechiell My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he addes this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques are spread over the face of the Earth and yet there are Heretiques spread over the whole face of the Earth some here some there yet they are wanting in no place they know not one another One Sect for example in Africa another Heresy in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotamia In divers places they are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all faithfull people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Vnion And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not thy selfe goe forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and feed thy kids he saith If thou know not thy selfe goe thou forth I doe not cast thee out but goe thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Goe thou out in the steps of the flocks not in my steps but in the steps of the flocks nor of one flock but of divers and wandring flocks And feed thy Kids not as Peter to whom is said Feed my sheepe but seed thy Kids in the Tabernacles of the Pastors not in the Tabernacle of the Pastor where there is one flock and one Pastor In which words this holy Father doth set down the Markes of Heresy to wit going out from the Church and Want of Vnity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ. And so it being Proved that Protestants having neither succession of Persons nor Doctrine nor Vniversality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresy 25 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresy against the Negative Precept of faith which obligeth us under pain of damnation not to imbrace any one errour contrary to any Truth sufficiently propounded as testified or revealed by Almighty God Which were enough to make good that among Persons who disagree many one point of Faith one part only can be saved Yet we will now prove that Whosoever erreth in any one point doth also break the Affirmative Precept of Faith whereby we are obliged positively to believe some revealed truth with an infallible and supernaturall Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate finis or meâ—ii as Divines speak that is so necessary that not any after he is come to the use of Reason was or can be saved without it according to the words of the Apostle Without Faith it is impossible to please God 26 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurtty Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will proue to bee wanting in the beliefe of Protestants even in those points which are true in themseluâ—s and to which they yeeld assent as hapeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine Faith want meanes absolutely necessary to salvation 27 And first that their beliefe wanteth Certainty I proue because denying the Vniversall infallibility of the Church can haue no certain grouÌ„nd to know what Objects are â—evealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it selfe most true and infallible but without the direction declaration of the Church we can neither haue certain means to know what Scripture is Canonicall nor what Translations be faithfull nor what is the true meaning of Scripture Every Protestant as I suppose is perswaded that his own opinions be true and that he hath used such means as are wont to be prescribed for understanding the Scripture as Prayer Conferring of divers Texts c. and yet their disagreements shew thaâ— some of them are deceaved And therefore it is cleer that they haue no one certain ground whereon to rely for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamentall points upon the selfe same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority but according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach doe sometimes faile it is cleer that the ground of their faith is infallible in no point at all And albeit sometime it chance to hit on the truth yet it is likewise apt to lead them to errour As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths withall divers errours upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith bâ—t only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 28 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall For since they acknowledge that every errour in fundamentall points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points bee fundamentall it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamentall error and so want the substance of faith without which there can be no hope of Salvation 29 And that he who erreth against any one revealed truth as certainly some Protestants must doe because contradictory Propositions cannot both be true doth loose all Divine faith is a very true doctrine delivered by Catholique Divines with so generall a consent that the contrary is wont to be censured as temerarious The Angelicall Doctor S. Thomas proposeth this Question Whether he who denieth one Article of faith may retain faith in other Articles and resolveth that he cannot which he proveth Argumentâ— sed contra because As deadly sin is opposits to Charity so to deny one Article of faith is opposite to faith But Charity doth not remain with any one deadly sin therefore faith doth not remain after the deniall of any one Article of faith Whereof he gives this farther reason Because saith he the nature of every habit doth depend upon the formall Motiue and Obiect thereof which Motiue being taken away the
thou wilt and not belieue what thou wilt not Nay this holy Father is not content to call it Foolishnesse but meer Maâ—nesse in these words Why should I not most diligently enquire what Christ commanded of those before all others by whose Authority I was moved to belieue that Christ commanded any good thing Canst thou better declare to me what he said whom I would not haue thought to haue been or to be if the Beliefe thereof had been recommended by thee to me Thâ— therefore I believed by fame strengthned with Celebrity Consent Antiquitie But every one may see that you so few so turbulent so new can produce nothing which deserues Authority What MADNESSE is this Belieue them Catholiques that we ought to belieue Christ but learne of us what Christ said Why I beseech thee Surely if they Catholiques were not at all and could not teach mee any thing I would more easily perswade my selfe that I were not to belieue Christ then I should learne any thing concerning him from other then those by whom I believed him Lastly I aske what wisedome it could bee to leaue all visible Churches and consequently the true Catholique Church of Christ which you confesse cannot erre in points necessary to salvation and the Roman Church which you grant doth not erre in fundamentalls and follow private men who may erre even in points necessary to salvation Especially if we adde that when Luther rose there was no visible true Catholique Church besides that of Rome and them who agreed with her in which sense she was and is the only true Church of Christ and not capable of any Error in faith Nay even Luther who first opposed the Roman Church yet comming to dispute against other Heretiques he is forced to give the Lye both to his own words and deeds in saying We freely confesse that in the Papacy there are many good things worthy the name of Christian which have come from them to us Namely we confesse that in the Papacy there is true Scripture true Baptisme the true Sacrament of the Altar the true keys for remission of sinnes the true office of Preaching true Catechisme as our Lords Prayer Ten Commandements Articles of faith c. And afterward I avouch that under the Papacy there is true Christianity yea the Kernell and Marrow of Christianity and many pious and great Saints And again he affirmeth that the Church of Rome hath the true Spirit Gospells Faith Baptisme Sacraments the Keyes the Office of Preaching Prayer Holy Scripture and whatsoever Christianity ought to have And a little before I heare and see that they bring in Anabaptisme only to this end that they may spight the Pope as men that will receive nothing from Antichrist no otherwise then the Sacramentaries doe who therefore believe only Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament meerely in hatred against the Bishop of Rome and they think that by this meanes they shall overcome the Papacy Verily these men rely upon a weak ground for by this meanes they must deny the whole Scripture and the Office of Preaching For we have all these things from the Pope otherwise we must goe make a new Scripture O Truth more forcible as S. Austine saies to wring out Confession then is any racke or torment And so we may truly say with Moyses Inimici nostri sunt Iudices Our very Enemies give sentence for us 32 Lastly since your faith wanteth Certainty and Prudence it is easy to inferre that it wants the fourth Condition Supernaturality For being but an Humane perswasion or Opinion it is not in nature or Essence Supernaturall And being imprudent and rash it cannot proceed from divine Motion and grace and therefore it is neither supernaturall in it selfe nor in the cause from which it proceedeth 33 Since therefore we have proved that whosoever erres against any one point of faith looseth all divine faith even concerning those other Articles wherein he doth not erre and that although he could still retaine true faith for some points yet any one errour in whatsoever other matter concerning faith is a grievous sinne it cleerely followes that when two or more hold different doctrines concerning faith and Religion there can be but one Part saved For declaring of which truth if Catholiques be charged with Want of Charity and Modesty and be accused of rashnesse ambition and fury as D. Potter is very free in this kind I desire every one to ponder the words of S. Chrysostome who teacheth that every least errour overthrowes all faith and whosoever is guilty thereof is in the Church like one who in the Common wealth forgeth false come Let them heare saith this holy Father what S. Paul saith Namely that they who brought in some small errour had overthrown the Gospell For to shew how a small thing ill mingled doth corrupt the whole he said that the Gospell was subverted For as he who clips a little of the stamp from the Kings mony makes the whole piece of no value so whosoever takes away the least particle of sound faith is wholly corrupted alwaies going from that beginning to worse things Where then are they who condemne us as contentious persons because we cannot agree with Heretiques and doe often say that there is no difference betwixt us and them but that our disagreement proceeds from Ambition to dominere And thus having shewed that Protestants want true Faith it remaineth that according to my first designe I examine whether they doe not also want Charity as it respects a mans selfe THE ANSVVER TO THE SIXTH CHAPTER That Protestants are not Heretiques HE that will accuse any one man much more any great multitude of men of any great and horrible crime should in all reason and justice take care that the greatnesse of his evidence doe equall if not exceed the quality of the crime And such an accusation you would here make shew of by pretending first to lay such grounds of it as are either already proved or else yeelded on all sides and after to raise a firme and stable structure of convincing arguments upon them But both these I find to be meere and vaine pretences and having considered this Chapter also without prejudice or passion as I did the former I am enforc'd by the light of Truth to pronounce your whole discourse a painted and ruinous Building upon a weak sandy Foundation 2 Ad § 2. 3. First for your grounds a great part of theÌ„ is falsely said to be either proved or granted It is true indeed that Man by his naturall wit or industry could never have attained to the knowledge of Gods will to give him a supernaturall and eternall happinesse nor of the meanes by which his pleasure was to bestow this happinesse upon him And therefore your first ground is good That it was requisite his understanding should be enabled to apprehend that end and meanes by a knowledge supernaturall I say this is good if you mean
by knowledge an apprehension or beliefe But if you take the word properly and exactly it is both false for faith is not knowledge no more then three is foure but eminently contained in it so that he that knowes believes and something more but he that believes many times doe not know nay if he doth barely and meerely believe he doth never know and besides it is retracted by your selfe presently where you require That the object of faith must be both naturally and supernaturally unknown And againe in the next page where you say Faith differs from science in regard of the objects obscurity For that science and knowledge properly taken are Synonimous termes and that a knowledge of a thing absolutely unknown is a plain implicancy I think are things so plain that you will not require any proofe of them 3 But then whereas you adde that if such a knowledge were no more then probable it could not be able sufficiently to over beare our will and encounter with humane probabilities being backed with the strength of flesh and bloud and therefore conclude that it was farther necessary that this supernaturall knowledge should be most certain and infallible To this I answere that I doe heartily acknowledge and believe the Articles of our faith be in themselves Truths as certain and infallible as the very common Principles of Geometry and Metaphysicks But that there is required of us a knowledge of them and an adherence to them as certain as that of sense or science that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation so that no man can hope to be in the state of Salvation but he that findes in himselfe such a degree of faith such a strength of adherence This I have already demonstrated to be a great errour and of dangerous and pernitious consequence And because I am more and more confirm'd in my perswasion that the truth which I there delivered is of great and singular use I will here confirme it with more reasons And to satisfy you that this is no singularity of my own my Margent presents you with a Protestant Divine of great authority and no way singular in his opinions who hath long since preached and justified the same doctrine 4 I say that every Text of Scripture which makes mention of any that were weake or of any that were strong in faith of any that were of litle or any that were of great faith of any that abounded or any that were rich in faith of encreasing growing rooting grounding establishing confirming in faith Every such Text is a demonstrative refutation of this vain fancy proving that faith even true and saving faith is not a thing consisting in such an indivisible point of perfection as you make it but capable of augmentation and diminution Every Praier you make to God to encrease your faith or if you conceive such a prayer derogatory from the perfection of your faith The Apostles praying to Christ to encrease their faith is a convincing argument of the same conclusion Moreover if this doctrine of yours were true then seeing not any the least doubting can consist with a most infallible certainty it will follow that every least doubting in any matter of faith though resisted and involuntary is a damnable sinne absolutely destructive so long as it lasts of all true and saving faith which you are so farre from granting that you make it no sinne at all but only an occasion of merit and if you should esteeme it a sinne then must you acknowledge contrary to your owne Principles that there are Actuall sinnes meerely involuntary The same is furthermore invincibly confirmed by every deliberate sinne that any Christian commits by any progresse in Charity that he makes For seeing as S. Iohn assures us our faith is the victory which overcomes the world certainly if the faith of all true Believers were perfect and if true faith be capable of no imperfection if all faith be a knowledge most certain and infallible all faith must be perfect for the most imperfect that is according to your doctrine if it be true must be most certain and sure the most perfect that is cannot be more then most certain then certainly their victory over the World and therefore over the flesh and therefore over sinne must of necessity be perfect and so it should be impossible for any true believer to commit any deliberate sinne and therefore he that commits any sinne must not think himselfe a true believer Besides seeing faith worketh by Charity and Charity is the effect of faith certainly if the cause were perfect the effect would be perfect and consequently as you make no degrees in faith so there would be none in charity and so no man could possibly make any progresse in it but all true believers should be equally in Charity as in faith you make them equall from thence it would follow unavoidably that whosoever findes in himselfe any true faith must presently perswade himselfe that he is perfect in Charity and whosoever on the other side discovers in his charity any imperfection must not believe that he hath any true faith These you see are strange and portentous consequences and yet the deduction of them from your doctrine is cleere and apparent which shewes this doctrine of yours which you would fain have true that there might be some necessity of your Churches infallibility to be indeed plainly repugnant not only to Truth but even to all Religion and Piety fit for nothing but to make men negligent of making any progresse in faith or Charity And therefore I must entreat and adjure you either to discover unto me which I take God to witnesse I cannot perceive some fallacy in my reasons against it or never hereafter to open your mouth in defence of it 5 As for that one single reason which you produce to confirm it it will appeare upon examination to be resolved finally into a groundlesse Assertion of your own contrary to all Truth and experience and that is That no degree of faith lesse then a most certaine and infallible knowledge can bee able sufficiently to overbeare our will and encovnter with humane probabilities being backt with the strength of Flesh and Blood For who sees not that many millions in the world forgoe many times their present ease and pleasure undergoe great and toylsome labours encounter great difficulties adventure vpon great dangers and all this not upon any certain expectation but upon a probable hope of some future gain and commodity and that not infinite and eternall but finite and temporall Who sees not that many men abstain from many things they exceedingly desire not upon any certain assurance but a probable feare of danger that may come after What man ever was there so madly in loue with a present penny but that hee would willingly spend it upon any litle hope that by doing so hee might gain an hundred thousand pound And I would fain know
such Authorities as these and think you selves at liberty from them and that you should account them Fathers when they are for you and Children when they are against you Yet I would not you should interpret this as if I had not great assurance that it is not possible for you ever to gain this cause at the tribunall of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleaged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that farre the greater part of them nay all of them that are any way considerable fall short of your purpose 23 S. Hierome you say writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chaire of Peter c. But then I pray consider he saith it to Pope Damasus and this will much weaken the Authority with them who know how great over-truths men usually write to one another in letters Consider againe that he saies only that he was then in Communion with the Chaire of Peter Nott hat he alwayes would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elswhere which shall be produced hereafter He saies that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but not that only Nor that alwayes Nay his judgment as shall appeare is expresse to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we meane to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must bee conceived as intended by him of that Bishop and Sea of Rome at that present time and in the present State and in respect of that doctrine which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceiu'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgments in matters of faith to the judgment of the Bishop Church of Rome how came it to passe that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrewes Canonicall upō the Authority of the Easterne Church then to reject it from the Canon upon the Authority of the Roman How comes it to passe that he dissented from the Authority of that Church touching the Canon of the Old Testament For if you say that the Church then consented with S. Hierome I feare you will loose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoyding this runne into a greater danger of being forc'd to confesse the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible that he should ever beleeue that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could haue been wrought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia and brought after two years banishment to subscribe Heresie Which Act of Liberius though some fondly question being so vain as to expect we should rather believe them that lived but yesterday thirteen hundred years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather then the dis-interessed time-fellowes or immediate Successors of Liberius himselfe yet I hope they will not proceed to such a degree of immodesty as once to question whether S. Hierome thought so And if this cannot be denyed I demand then if he had lived in Liberius his time could he or would he have written so to Liberius as he does to Damasus would he have said to him I am in the Communion of the Chair of Peter I know that the Church is built upon this Rock Whosoever gathereth not with thee scattereth Would he then have said the Roman faith and the Catholique were the same or that the Roman faith received no delusions no not from an Angell I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own beleif and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he streyned too high only of Damasus and never conceiv'd that his words would have been extended to all his Predecessors and all his Successors 24 The same Answer I make to the first place of S. Ambrose viz. that no more can be certainly concluded from it but that the Catholique Bishops and the Roman Church were then at unity so that whosoever agreed with the latter could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetuall and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops but he must agree with the Roman Church this he saies not nor gives you any ground to conclude from him Athanasius when he was excommunicated by Liberius agreed very ill with the Roman Church and yet you will not gainsay but he agreed well enough with the Catholique Bishops The second I am uncertain what the sense of it is and what truth is in it but most certain that it makes nothing to your present purpose For it neither affirmes nor imports that separation from the Roman Church is a certain marke of Heresy For the Rights of Communion whatsoever it signifies might be said to flow from it if that Church were by Ecclesiasticall Law the head of all other Churches But unlesse it were made so by divine Authority and that absolutely Separation from it could not be a marke of Heresy 25 For S. Cyprian all the world knowes that he resolutely opposed a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in the point of Re. baptizing which that Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition So necessary that by the Bishop of Rome Firmilianus and other Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia and Galatia and generally all who persisted in the contrary opinion were therefore deprived of the Churches Communion which excōmunication could not but involve S. Cyprian who defended the same opinion as resolutely as Firmilianus though Cardinall Perron magisterially and without all colour of proofe affirme the contrary and Cyprian in particular so farre cast off as for it to be pronounc'd by Stephen a false Christ. Again so necessary that the Bishops which were sent by Cyprian from Africk to Rome were not admitted to the Communion of ordinary conference But all men who were subject to the Bishop of Romes Authority were cōmanded by him not only to deny them the Churches peace Communion but even lodging and entertainment manifestly declaring that they reckoned them among those whom S. Iohn forbids to receive to house or to say God speed to them All these terrors notwithstanding S. Cyprian holdes still his former opinion though out of respect to the Churches peace he judged no man nor cut off any man from the right of Communion for thinking otherwise then he held yet he conceived Stephen his adherents to hold a pernitious error And S. Austin though disputing with the Donatists he useth some Tergiversatiō in the point yet confesseth elsewhere that it is not found that Cyprian did ever change his opinion And so farre was he from conceiving any necessity of doing so in submitting to the judgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome that he plainly professeth that
not afraid of Giants His words are these The first instance then that Calvin alleageth against the Popes censures is taken from Eusebius a an Arrian author and from Ruffinus b enemie to the Roman Church his translator who writ c that S. IRENEVS reprehended Pope Victor for having excommunicated the Churches of Asia for the question of the day of Pasche which they observed according to a particular tradition that S. IOHN had introduced d for a time in their Provinces because of the neighbourhood of the Iewes and to bury the Synagogue with honour and not according to the universall tradition of the Apostles Irenaeus saith Calvin reprehended Pope Victor bitterly because for a light cause he had moved a great and perillous contention in the Church There is this in the text that Calvin produceth He reprehended him that he had not done well to cut off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches But against whom maketh this but e against those that obiect it for who sees not that S. IRENEVS doth not there reprehend the Pope for the f want of power but for the ill use of his power and doth not reproach to the Pope that he could not excommunicate the Asians but admonisheth him that for g so small a cause he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the body of the Church Iraeneus saith Eusebius did fitly exhort Pope Victor that he should not cut off all the Churches of God which held this ancient tradition And Ruffinus translating and envenoming Eusebius saith He questioned Victor that he had not done well in cutting off from the body of unity so many and so great Churches of God And in truth how could S. IRENEUS have reprehended the Pope for want of power he that cries To the Roman Church because of a more powerfull principality that is to say as aboue appeareth h because of a principality more powerfull then the temporall or as wee have expounded other where because of a more powerful Original i it is necessary that every Church should agree And k therefore also S. IRENEVS alleageth not to Pope Victor the example of him and of the other Bishops of the Gaules assembled in a councell holden expressely for this effect who had not excommunicated the Asians nor the example of Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem and of the Bishops of Palestina assembled in an other Councell holden expressely for the same effect who had not excommunicated them nor the example of Palmas and of the other Bishops of Pontus assembled in the same manner and for the same cause in the Region of Pontus who had not excommunicated them but only alleadges to him the example of the Popes his predecessors The Prelates saith he who have presided before Soter in the Church where thou presidest Anisius Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Sixtus have not observed this custome c. and neverthelesse none of those that observed it have been excommunicated And yet O admirable providence of God the l successe of the after ages shewed that even in the use of his power the Popes proceeding was iust For after the death of Victor the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople and of Ephesus excommunicated again those that held the same custome with the provinces that the Pope had excommunicated and placed them in the Catalogue of heretiques under the titles of heretiques Quarto decumans But to this instance Calvins Sect doe annex two new observations the first that the Pope having threatned the Bishops of Asia to excommunicate them Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Metropolitan of Asia despised the Popes threats as it appeares by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius and of S. IEROM and which S. IEROM seemeth to approve when he saith he reports it to shew the spirit and authority of the man And the second that when the Pope pronounced anciently his excommunications he did no other thing but separate himself from the communion of those that he excommunicated and did not thereby separate them from the universall communion of the Church To the first then we say that so farre is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and deminishing the Popes authority that contrary wise it greatly magnifies and exalts it For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custome of his nation which he beleeved to be grounded upon the word of God who had assigned the fourteenth of the Moneth of March for the observation of the Pasche and upon the example of S. IOHNS tradition maintaines it obstinately Neverthelesse this that he answeres speaking in his own name and in the name of the Councell of the Bishops of Asia to whom he presided I feare not those that threaten us for my elders have said it is better to obey God then man Doth it not shew that had it not been that he beleeved the Popes threat was against the expresse word of God there had been cause to feare it and he had been obliged to obey him for m who knowes not that this answer it is better to obey God then men is not to be made but to those whom we were obliged to obey if their commandements were not contrary to the commandements of God And that he adds that he had called the Bishops of Asia to a Nationall Councell being n summoned to it by the Pope doth it not insinuate that the other Councels whereof Eusebius speaks that were holden about this matter through all the provinces of the Earth and particularly that of Palestina which if you beleeve the act that Beda said came to his hands Theophilus Archbishop of Cesarea had called by the auctority of Victor were holden at the instance of the Pope and consequently that the Pope was the first mover of the universall Church And that the Councels of Nicea of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the censure of Victor and excommunicated those that observed the custome of Polycrates doth it not prove that it was not the Pope but o Polycrates that was deceived in beleeving that the Popes cōmandement was against Gods commandement And that S. IEROM himselfe celebrates the Paschall Homelies of Theophilus Patriarke of Alexandria which followed the order of Nicea concerning the Pasche Doth it not iustifie that when S. IEROM saith that he reports the Epistle of Polycrates to shew the spirit and authority of the man he intends by authority not authority of right but of fact that is to say the credit that Polycrates had amongst the Asians and other Quarto decimans These are the Cardinall words The most materiall and considerable passages whereof to save the trouble of repetition I have noted with letters of reference whereunto my answers noted respectively with the same letters follow now in order a If Eusebius were an Arrian author It is nothing to the purpose what he writes there is no Arrianisme
nor any thing towards it Never any error was imputed to the Arrians for denying the Authority or the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome Besides what Eusebius saies he saies out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinall deny the story to be true therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foyle it cast a blurre upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius saies any thing which the Cardinall thinkes for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least hee would not take that for an answer to the arguments he drawes out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius saies the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops that they advised Victor to keepe those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharpely reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proofe of it The Cardinall thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polyerates and the Asian Bishops knew no such matter nay professed the contrary And who is more likely to know the Truth they which lived within two ages of the fountain of it or the Cardinall who lived sixteen ages after it e How can it make against those that object it seeing it is evident from Irenaeus his Reprehension that he thought Victor and the Roman Church no infallible nor sufficient Iudge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was Vniversall Tradition what not what was a sufficient ground of Excommunication and what not and consequently that there was no such necessity as is pretended that all other Churches should in matters of faith conforme themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or signe of Power Authority in the party excommunicating over the party excommunicated whereas it is undeniably evident out of the Church Story that it was often used by Equalls upon Equalls and by Inferiors upon Superiors if the equalls or inferiors thought their equalls or superiors did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confesse that they thought that a small cause of excommunication and unsufficient which Victor and his adherents thought great and sufficient And consequently that Victor and his Part declared that to be a matter of faith and of necessity which they thought not so and where was then their conformity h True you have so expounded it but not proved nor offered any proofe of your exception This also we must take upon your Authority Irenaeus speaks not one word of any other power to which he compares or before which he preferres the power of the Roman Church And it is evident out of the Councell of Chalcedon that all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperiall City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperiall City they decreed that that Chuch should have equall Priviledges and dignity and preheminence with the Church of Rome All the Fathers agreed in this decree saving only the Legats of the Bishop of Rome shewing plainly that they never thought of any Supremacy given the Bishops of Rome by God or grounded upon Scripture but only by the Church and therefore alterable at the Churches pleasure i This is falsely translated Convenire ad Romanam Ecclesiam every body knowes signifies no more but to resort or come to the Roman Church which then there was a necessity that men should doe because that the affaires of the Empire were transacted in that place But yet Irenaeus saies not so of every Church simply which had not been true but only of the adjacent Churches for so he expounds himselfe in saying To this Church it is necessary that every Church that is all the faithfull round about should resort With much more reason therefore we returne the Argument thus Had Irenaeus thought that all Churches must of necessity agree with the RomaÌ„ how could he all other Bishops have then pronounc'd that to be no matter of Faith no sufficient ground of Excommunication which Victor and his adherents thought to be so And how then could they have reprehended Victor so much for the ill use of his power as Cardinall Perron confesses they did seeing if that was true which is pretended in this also as well as other things it was necessary for them to agree with the Church of Rome Some there are that say but more wittily then truly that all Cardinall Bellarmines works are so consonant to themselves as if he had written them in two houres Had Cardinall Perron wrote his book in two houres sure he would not have done that here in the middle of the Book which he condemns in the beginning of it For here he urgeth a consequence drawn from the mistaken words of Irenaeus against his lively and actuall practice which proceeding there he justly condemnes of evident injustice His words are For who knowes not that it is too great an injustice to alleage consequences from passages and even those ill interpreted and misunderstood and in whose illation there is alwaies some Paralogisme hid against the expresse words and the lively actuall practise of the same Fathers from whom they are collected and that may be good to take the Fathers for Adversaries and to accuse them for want of sense or memory but not to take them for Iudges and to submit themselves to the observation of what they have believ'd and practised k This is nothing to the purpose he might choose these examples not as of greater force and authority in themselves but as fitter to be imploied against Victor as domestique examples are fitter and more effectuall then forraine and for his omitting to presse him with his own example and others to what purpose had it been to use them seeing their Letters sent to Victor from all parts wherein they reprehend his presumption shewed him sufficiently that their example was against him But besides he that reads Irenaeus his Letter shall see that in the matter of the Lent Fast and the great variety about the celebration of it which he paralels with this of Easter he presseth Victor with the example of himselfe and others not Bishops of Rome both they saith hee speaking of other Bishops notwithstanding this difference retained peace among themselves and wee also among our selves retaine it inferring from his example that Victor also ought to doe so l If the Popes proceeding was just then the Churches of Asia were indeed and in the sight of God excommunicate and out of the state of Salvation which Irenaeus and all the other ancient Bishops never thought And if they were so why doe you accouâ—t them Saints and Martyrs But the truth is that these Councells did no way shew
Doctrine of these Protestants taken altogether is not a Doctrine of Liberty not a Doctrine that turnes hope into presumptioÌ„ and carnall security though it may justly be feared that many licentious persons taking it by halfes have made this wicked use of it For my part I doe heartily wish that by publique Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever preach or print this Doctrine that Faith alone justifies unlesse he joynes this together with it that universall obedience is necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but when the 13. Chap. of the 1. Epist. to the Corinth concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33 Whereas you say that some Protestants doe expresly affirme the former point to be the soule of the Church c. and that therefore they must want the Theologicall vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their Communion I Ans. They have great reason to believe the Doctrine of Iustification by faith only a Point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteeme it a principall and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousnesse which if it be imperfect will not justify but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and feare If this Doctrine be otherwise expounded then I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may doe truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian but that he did believe these divine truths That he must make his calling certain by good workes That he must work out his salvation with Fear and Trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firme and a more unshaken assent then he does that himselfe is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himselfe justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity 〈◊〉 doe either would not rather forgoe his beliefe of these Doctrines then the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments then those which being the expresse words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian. And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrines doth very well qualify their perswasion of the latter and that the former as also the lives of many of them doe sufficiently testify are more effectuall to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filiall and modest assurance of Gods favour built upon the conscience of his love and fear then the latter can be to swell and puffe them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyn'd with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each other with the strict embraces of love communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to proscribe them from heaven upon triviall and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgement of our Brethren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God then a true judgement if it be uncharitable and and therefore shall alwaies choose if we doe erre to erre on the milder and more mercifull part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected then eject those that deserve to be retain'd 34 Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Iustification you must needs inferre that they want Vnity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I Answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you inferre it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Poliâ—rates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian in as much as it is indeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrine as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point be made unnecessary by being so accounted nor an unnecessary point be made necessary by being overvalued But as the ancient Philosophers whose different opinions about the soule of man you may read in Aristotle de Anima and Cicero's Tusculan Questions notwithstanding their divers opinions touching the nature of the soule yet all of them had soules and soules of the same nature Or as those Physitians who dispute whether the braine or heart be the principall part of a man yet all of them have braines and have hearts and herein agree sufficiently So likewise though some Protestants esteeme that Doctrine the soule of the Church which others doe not so highly value yet this hinders not but that which is indeed the soule of the Church may be in both 〈◊〉 of them and though one account that a necessary truth which 〈◊〉 account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet this notwithstanding in those truths which are truly really necessary they may all agree For no Argument can be more sophisticall then this They differ in some points which they esteeme necessary Therefore they differ in some that indeed and in truth are so â—35 Now as concerning the other inference That they cannot agree what points are fundamentall I have said and prov'd formerly that there is no such necessity as you imagin or pretend that men should certainly know what is and what is not fundamentall They that believe all things plainly delivered in Scripture believe all things fundamentall and are at sufficient Vnity in matters of faith though they cannot precisely and exactly distinguish between what is fundamentall and what is profitable nay though by error they mistake some vaine or perhaps hurtfull opinions for necessary and fundamentall Truths Besides I have shewed above that as Protestants doe not agree for you overreach in saying they cannot touching what points are fundamentall so neither doe you agree what points are defin'd so to be accounted and what are not nay nor concerning the subject in which God hath placed this pretended
his sword to his Prefect with this commission that if he governed well he should use it for him if ill against him Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to preach against her corruptions in manners And if so why not against her errors in doctrine if she had any Whether she gave them not authority to preach the whole Gospell of Christ and consequently against her doctrine if it should contradict any part of the Gospell of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawfull in the Church of Rome for any Lay man or woman that has ability to perswade others by word or by writing from error and unto truth And why this liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other commission or vocation then that of a Christian to doe a work of charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without an unnecessary disturbance of order to perswade men out of a false unto a true way of eternall happinesse Especially the Apostle having assur'd us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soule from death and shall hide a multitude of sinnes Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain Others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not consecrate a Metropolitan of England as well as the Cardinalls doe the Pope Whether the King or Queen of England or they that have the government in their hands in the minority of the Prince may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated against whom there is no Canonicall exception Whether the Doctrine that the King is supream head of the Church of England as the Kings of Iudah the first Christian Emperors were of the Iewish and Christian Church be any new found doctrine Whether it may not be true that Bishops being made Bishops have their authority immediatly from Christ though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings authority as well as you say the Pope being Pope has authority immediatly from Christ and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the authority of the Cardinalls Whether you doe well to suppose that Christian Kings have no more authority in ordering the affaires of the Church then the great Turk or the Pagan Emperors Whether the King may not give authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdome and yet not be capable of doing it himselfe as well as a Bishop may give authority to a Physitian to practise Physick in his Diocesse which the Bishop cannot doe himselfe Whether if Ner◠the Emperour would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to preach the Gospell of Christ and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome whether they would have question'd his Authority to doe so Whether there were any Law of God or man that prohibited K. IAMES to give Commission to Bishops nay to lay his injunction upon them to doe any thing that is lawfull Whether a casuall irregularity may not be lawfully dispenc'd with Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incurre any be indispensable And if not who is he or who are they whom the Pope is so subject unto that they may dispense with him Whether that be certain which you take for granted That your Ordination imprints a character and ours doth not Whether the power of consecrating and ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops and be derived unto them not from the King but God and yet the King have authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person whom he shall commend unto them As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of architecture and had it immediatly by infusion from God himselfe yet if they were the Kings subjects he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use or a fortresse for his service Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himselfe yet I hope you will not deny him power to command any of his subjects that has this power to ordaine any fit person Priest whom he shall desire to be ordained Whether it doe not follow that whensoever the King commands an house to be built a message to be delivered or a murtherer to be executed that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect messenger or executioner As well as that they are ipsofacto ordain'd and consecrated who by the Kings authority are commended to the Bishops to be ordained and consecrated Especially seeing the King will not deny but that these Bishops may refuse to doe what he requires to be done lawfully if the person be unworthy if worthy unlawfully indeed but yet de facto they may refuse and in case they should doe so whether justly or unjustly neither the King himselfe nor any body else would esteeme the person Bishop upon the Kings designation Whether many Popes though they were not consecrated Bishops by any temporall Prince yet might not or did not receive authority from the Emperor to exercise their Episcopall function in this or that place And whether the Emperors had not authority upon their desert to deprive them of their jurisdiction by imprisonment or banishment Whether Protestants doe indeed pretend that their Reformation is universall Whether in saying the Donatists Sect was confined to Africa you doe not forget your selfe and contradict what you said above in § 17. of this Chapter where you tell us they had some of their Sect residing in Rome Whether it be certain that none can admit of Bishops willingly but those that hold them of divine institution Whether they may not be willing to have them conceiving that way of government the best though not absolutely necessary Whether all those Protestants that conceive the distinction between Priests and Bishops not to be of divine institution be Schismaticall and Hereticall for thinking so Whether your forme of ordaining Bishops and Priests be essentiall to the constitution of a true Church Whether the formes of the Church of England differ essentially from your formes Whether in saying that the true Church cannot subsist without undoubted true Bishops and Priests you have not overthrown the truth of your own Church wherein I have proved it plainly impossible that any man should be so much as morally certain either of his own Priesthood or any other mans Lastly whether any one kind of these externall formes and orders and government be so necessary to the being of a Church but that they may not be diverse in diverse places and that a good and peaceable Christian may and ought to submit himself to the Government of the place where he lives