of the Apostles the (h) Lib. 28. cont Faust cap. 2. Church hath brought down to our days by a never-interrupted course of times and by undoubted succession of connection Now that the Reformation begun by Luther was interrupted for divers ages before him is manifest our of History and by his endeavouring a Reformation which must presuppose Abuses He cannot therefore pretend a continued Succession of that Doctrin which he sought to revive and reduce to the knowledge and practise of men And they ought not to prove that they have a Succession of doctrin because they agreee with the doctrin of the Apostles but contrarily we must infer that they agree not with the Apostles because they cannot pretend a never-interrupted succession of doctrin from the times of the Apostles till Luther And here it is not amiss to note that although the Waldeases Wickliff c. had agreed with Protestants in all points of doctrin yet they could not brag of Succession from them because their doctrin hath not been free from interruption which necessarily crosseth Succession 25 And as want of Succession of Persons and Doctrin cannot stand with that Universality of Time which is inseparable from the Catholique Church so likewise the disagreeing Sects which are dispersed throughout divers Countries and Nations cannot help towards that Universality of Place wherewith the true Church must be endued but rather such local multiplication doth more and more lay open their division and want of succession in Doctrin For the excellent Observation of S. Augustine doth punctually agree with all modern Heretiques wherein this holy Father having cited these words our of the Prophet Ezechiel (i) Cap. 24. My flocks are dispersed upon the whole face of the Earth he adds this remarkable sentence Not all Heretiques (k) Lib. de Pastorib c. 8. 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 Heresie in the East another in Egypt another in Mesopotania In divers places there are divers one Mother pride hath begot them all as our own Mother the Catholique Church hath brought forth all saithful people dispersed throughout the whole world No wonder then if Pride breed Dissention and Charity Union And in another place applying to Heretiques those words of the Canticles If thou know not (l) Cant. 1. thy self go forth and follow after the steps of the flocks and seed the kids he saith If thou know not thy self go (m) Ep. 48. thou forth I do not cast thee out but go thou out that it may be said of thee They went from us but they were not of us Go 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 thy sheep but seed thy kids in the Tabernacle 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 Marks of Heresie to wit going out from the Church and Want of Unity among themselves which proceed from not acknowledging one supreme Visible Pastor and Head under Christ And so it being Proved that Protestants havâ—â— neither succession of Persons nor Doctrin nor Universality of Time or Place cannot avoid the just note of Heresie 26 Hitherto we have brought arguments to prove that Luther and all Protestants are guilty of Heresie against the Negative Precept of saith which obligeth 〈◊〉 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 in any 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 supernatural Faith which is necessary to salvation even necessitate sinis or medii 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 saith (n) Heb. 11.6 it is impossible to please God 27 In the beginning of this Chapter I shewed that to Christian Catholique faith are required Certainty Obscurity Prudence and Supernaturality All which Conditions we will prove to be wanting in the belief of Protestants even in those points which are true in themselves and to which they yield assent as happeneth in all those particulars wherein they agree with us from whence it will follow that they wanting true Divine saith want means absolutely necessary to salvation The faith of Protestants wanteth Certainty 28 And first that their belief wanteth Certainty I prove because they denying the Universal infallibility of the Church can have no certain ground to know what Objects are revealed or testified by God Holy Scripture is in it self most true and infallible but without the direction and declaration of the Church we can neither have certain means to know what Scâ—ipture is Canonical nor what Translations be faithful 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 that some of them are deceived And therefore it is clear that they have no one certain ground whereon to relie for understanding of Scripture And seeing they hold all the Articles of Faith even concerning fundamental points upon the self same ground of Scripture interpreted not by the Churches Authority according to some other Rules which as experience of their contradictions teach do sometimes fail it is clear 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 error As all Arch-heretiques believing some truths and withall divers errors upon the same ground and motive have indeed no true divine infallible faith but only a fallible humane opinion and perswasion For if the ground upon which they rely were certain it could never produce any errour 29 Another cause of uncertainty in the faith of Protestants must rise from their distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental For since they acknowledge that every error in fundamental points destroyeth the substance of faith and yet cannot determine what points be fundamental it followeth that they must remain uncertain whether or no they be not in some fundamental error and so want the substance of faith
Epistle to the Romans be of sufficient force for their sense of Justification Then certainly an Argument from as express words in the Epistle to the Galatians will be as concluding for mine in which Epistle he also purposely states the same questions Gal. 3.11 The words are Gal. 3.11 That no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the Just shall live by faith Now to live I hope does not signifie to have ones sins forgiven him but to be Saved Therefore unless S. Paul include a right unto Salvation within the compass of Justification that Text might have been spared as nothing at all serving for his purpose Besides Is not Salvation as free as gracious as undeserved an act of God as Remission of sins Is it not as much for Christs sake that we are saved as that our sins are forgiven us Thus much for what I suppose is meant by Justification I will now as briefly and as perspicuously as I can without using Allegories and Metaphorical expressions with which this point is ordinarily much obscured shew you the combination of these two words in what sense I suppose S. Paul may use this proposition We are Justified by Faith without the Works of the Law 38. In the first place therefore I will lay down this Conclusion as an infallible safe foundation That if we have respect to the proper meritorious cause of our Justification we must not take Faith in that Proposition for any virtue or Grace inherent in us but only for the proper and principal object thereof Jesus Christ and his Merits And the meaning of that Proposition must be that we are not justified for the merits of any Righteousness in our selves whether Legal or Evangelical but only for the Obedience and Death of our Blessed Saviour Jesus Christ Though this be most true yet I suppose that S. Paul in that proposition had not a respect to the Meritorious Cause of our Justification but to that Formal Condition required in us before we be Justified as I think may appear by that which follows 39. I told you even now that I would in this point purposely abstain from using Metaphors and Figurative Allusions and the reason is because I suppose and not without reasonable grounds that the stating of this point of Justification by Metaphors has made this Doctrine which is set down with greater light and perspicuity in holy Scripture than almost any other to be a Doctrine of the most Scholastical subtilty the fullest of shadows and clouds of all the rest For example In that fashion and dress of Divinity as it is now worn slic'd and mangled into Theses and Distinctions we find this point of our Justification thus express'd That Faith is therefore said to Justifie us because it is that which makes Christs righteousness ours it is as it were an instrument or hand whereby we receive lay hold on and apply Christ unto our selves Here 's nought but flowers of Rhetorick Figures and Metaphors which though they are capable of a good sense yet are very improper to state a Controversie withall 40. But let us examine them a little We must not say they conceive of Faith as if it were a Vertue or Grace or any part of Righteousness inherent in us For Faith as a Grace has no influence at all into our Justification Mark the Coherence of these things Faith is considered as an hand or an instrument in our Justification and yet for all it is a Hand it is nothing in or of us for it seems Hands are not parts of mens bodies Again Faith puts on Christ receives him layes hold upon him makes his righteousness ours and yet it does nothing for all that Besides How can Faith be properly call'd an instrument of Justification An Instrument is that which the principal Cause the Efficient makes use of in his operation Now Justification in this sense is an immanent internal action of God in which there is no co-operation of any other agent nor any real alteration wrought in man the object thereof Does God then use Faith as an instrument in producing the Act of Justification No but it is Instrumentum Passivum saith one That is a thing never heard of in nature before and the meaning is sure Faith certainly is something but what a kind of thing we know not By these means it comes to pass that the Doctrine of our Justification as some men have handled it is become as deep as unsearchable a mystery as that of the Trinity 41. Without question there is nothing can be more evident to a man that shall unpartially consider S. Paul's method in his discourse of Justification then that by Faith he intends some operative working grace in us For instance The Apostle proves that we Christians are to seek for Justification the same way that Abraham attained unto it namely by Faith for saith the Scripture in his quotation Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness What was that which was accounted to him His believing That is say some Christ who was the object of his Belief This is a forc'd interpretation certainly and which a Jew would never have been perswaded to But that Christ was not at all intended in that place it is evident for Abraham's belief there had respect to Gods promise made to him of giving him a Son in his old age and by that Son a Seed as innumerable as the stars in heaven as appears Gen. 15.4 5 6. whereas the Promise of Christ Gen. 15.4 5 6. Gen. 18.18 follows three Chapters after to wit Gen. 18.18 Again the Apostle in many places useth these words We are Justified by Faith in Christ and by the Faith of Jesus Christ which speeches of his will admit of no tolerable sense unless by Faith he intends some work or obedience perform'd by us This therefore being taken for granted that by Faith is meant some condition required at our hands and yet my former conclusion of our Justification only for the merits of Christ remaining firm we will in the next place consider what kind of obedience that of Faith is and in what sense it may be said to justifie us 42. What satisfaction I conceive may be given to this Quaery I will set down in this Assertion Assertion That since Justification even as it includes Remission of sins is that Promise to perform which unto us God has oblig'd himself in the New Covenant it must necessarily presuppose in the person to be so justified such an obedience as the Gospel requires namely first Repentance from dead works a conversion to a new obedience of those holy Moral Commands which are ratifi'd in the Gospel and a relying upon Christ as the only meritorious cause of our Justification and Salvation by a particular Evangelical Faith All this I say is pre-required in the person who is made capable of Justification either in the exercise or at least in
endevour But because this Supposition though certainly possible is very rare and admirable I say secondly that I am verily perswaded that God will not impute errors to them as sins who use such a measure of industry in finding truth as humane prudence and ordinary discretion their abilities and opportunities their distractions and hinderances and all other things considered shall advise them unto in a matter of such consequence But if herein also we fail then our errors begin to be malignant and justly imputable as offences against God and that love of his truth which he requires in us You will say then that for those erring Protestants which are in this case which evidently are far the greater patt they sin damnably in erring and therefore there is little hope of their Salvation To which I answer that the consequence of this Reason is somewhat strong against a Protestant but much weakned by coming out of the mouth of a Papist For all sins with you are not damnable and therefore Protestants errors might be sins and yet not damnable But yet out of courtesie to you we will remove this rubbe out of your way and for the present suppose them mortal sins and is there then no hope of Salvation for him that commits them Not you will say if he die in them without repentance and such Protestants you speak of Who without repentance die in their Errors Yea but what if they die in their errors with repentance then I hope you will have Charity enough to think they may be saved Charity Mistaken takes it indeed for granted that this supposition is destructive of it self In the place above quoted and that it is impossible and incongruous that a man should repent of those errors wherein he dies or die in those whereof he repents But it was wisely done of Him to take it for granted for most certainly He could not have spoken one word of sense for the confirmation of it For seeing Protestants believe as well as you God's infinite and most admirable perfections in himself more than most worthy of all possible love seeing they believe as well as you his infinite goodness to them in creating them of nothing in creating them according to his own Image in creating all things for their use and benefit in streaming down his favours on them every moment of their lives in designing them if they serve him to infinite and eternal happiness in redeeming them not with corruptible things but the precious blood of his beloved Son seeing they believe as well as you his infinite goodness and patience towards them in expecting their Conversion in wooing alluring leading and by all means which his wisdom can suggest unto him and man's nature is capable of drawing them to Repentance and Salvation Seeing they believe these things as well as you and for ought you know consider them as much as you and if they do not it is not their Religion but They that are too blame what can hinder but that the consideration of God's most infinite goodness to them and their own almost infinite wickedness against him God's Spirit co-operating with them may raise them to a true and sincere and a cordial love of God And seeing sorrow for having injured or offended the person beloved or when we fear we may have offended him is the most natural effect of true love what can hinder but that love which hath oft-times constrained them to lay down their lives for God which our Saviour assures us is the noblest sacrifice we can offer may produce in them an universal sorrow for all their sins both which they know they have committed and which they fear they may have 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 sins cannot but be comprized 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 sins may be heard and accepted by God as well from a Protestant that dies in some errors as from a Papist that dies in some other sins of Ignorance which perhaps he might more easily have discovered to be sins than a Protestant could his errors to be errors As well from a Protestant that held some error which as he conceived God's word and his reason which is also in some sort God's word lead him unto as from a Dominican who perhaps took up his opinion upon trust not because he had reason to believe it true but because it was the Opinion of his Order for the same man if he had light upon another Order would in all probability have been of the other opinion For what else is the cause that generally all the Dominicans are of one opinion and all the Jesuits of the other I say from a Dominican who took up his opinion upon trust and that such an opinion if we believe 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 and worst the as good as the best And yet such is the partiality of your Hypocrisie that of disagreing 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 God's Testimony and be incapable of salvation That a Dominican through culpable negligence living and dying in his error may repent of it though he knowes it not or be saved though he do not But if a Protestant do the very same thing in the very same point and die in his error his case is desperate The sum of all that hath been said to this Demand is this 1. That no erring Protestant denies any truth testified by God under this formality as testified by him nor which they know or believe to be testified by him And therefore it is an horrible calumny in you to say They call God's Veracity in question For God's undoubted and unquestioned Veracity is to them the ground why they hold all they do hold neither do they hold any opinion so stiffly but they will forgo it rather than this one That all which God says is true 2. God hath not so clearly and plainly declared himself 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 lover 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 error for truth and reject truth for error 3. If any Protestant or Papist be betrayed into or kept in any Error by any sin of his will as it is to be feared many millions are such Error is as the cause of
obedience and as our Saviour said of some so the Scripture could it speak I believe would say to you Why call ye me Lord Lord and do not that which I command you Cast away the vain and arrogant pretence of infallibility which makes your errors incurable Leave picturing God and worshipping him by pictures Teach not for Doctrin the commandements of men Debarr not the Laity of the Testament of Christ's Blood Let your publique Prayers and Psalms and Hymns be in such language as is for the edification of the Assistents Take not from the Clergy that liberty of Marriage which Christ hath left them Do not impose upon men that Humility of worshipping Angels which S. Paul condemns Teach no more proper sacrifices of Christ but one Acknowledg them that die 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 bloud Acknowledg the gift of continency without Marriage not to be given to all Let not the weapons of your warfare be carnal such as Massacres Treasons Persecutions and in a word all means either violent or fraudulent These and other things which the Scripture commands you do and then we shall willingly give you such Testimony as you deserve but till you do 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 possess the Scripture from you or take it upon the integrity of your Custody but upon Universal 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 farr 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 cleer as the sun if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conform your doctrin to them or reform 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 Doctrin at least in their judgement who were prepossessed 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 for giving the function of supreme and sole Judge to holy Writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this means controversies are increased 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 vailed 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 do 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 means you would fall into of losing 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 effectual 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 tryal of your Religion by Scripture and making them yield 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 self but of all of your Side whose hearts you cannot know and profess 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 men to judge them by for we mean nothing else you only affirm it without proof as if the thing were evident of it self And therefore I conceiving the contrary to be more evident might well content my self to deny it without refutation Yet I cannot but desire you to tell me If Scripture cannot be the Judge of any Controversie 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 self is the subject of the Question which cannot be determined but by natural 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 do 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 words we have direct Boyes-play a thing given with one hand and taken away with the other an acknowledgment made in one line and retracted in the next We acknowledg say you Scripture to be a perfect rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule only we deny that it excludes unwritten Tradition As if you should have said We acknowledg 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 acknowledgment or retract your retractation of it for both cannot possibly stand together For if you will stand to what you have granted That Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a writing can be you must then grant it both so Compleat that it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation For both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule and a writing is capable of both these properties 6. That both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule
for this Reason neither may they speaking in their Decrees be Judges for the same Reason If the Pope's Decrees you will say be obscure he can explain himself and so the Scripture cannot But the holy Ghost that speaks in Scripture can do so if he please and when he is pleased will do so In the mean time it will be fit for you to wait his leisure and to be content that those things of Scripture which are plain should be so and those which are obscure should remain obscure until he please to declare them Besides he can which you cannot warrant me of the Pope or a Councel speak at first so plainly that his words shall need no farther explanation and so in things necessary we believe he hath done And if you say The Decrees of Councels touching Controversies though they be not the Judge yet they are the Judge's sentence So I say the Scripture though not the Judge is the sentence of the Judge When therefore you conclude That to say a Judge 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 speaks in Scripture This I grant is true but I may not grant that a Judge such an one as we dispute of is necessary either to do 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 Judg to interpret them in plain places than to have a Judg to interpret the meaning of a Councel's Decrees and others to interpret their Interpretations others to interpret theirs and so on for ever And where they are not plain there if we using diligence to find the Truth do yet miss of it and fall into Errour there is no danger in it They that err and they that do not err may both be saved So that those places which contain things necessary and wherein Errour were dangerous need no infallible interpreter because they are plain 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 than the Law it self 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 Judges to determine Civil and Criminal Controversies and to give every man that justice which the Law allows him But your Argument drawn from hence to shew a necessity of a Visible Judge in Controversies of Religion I say is Sophistical and that for many Reasons 14. First Because the variety of Civil cases is infinite and therefore there cannot be possibly Laws enough provided for the determination of them and therefore there must be a Judge to supply out of the Principles of Reason the interpretation of the Law where it is defective 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 Leter of the Law according to rigor would be many times unjust and therefore there is need of a Judge to moderate it whereof in Religion there is no use at all 16. Thirdly In Civil and Criminal Causes the parties have for the most part so much interest and very often so little honesty that they will not submit to a Law though never so plain if it be 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 plain and extended to all cases there would be little need of Judges Now in matters of Religion when the Question is Whether every man be a fit Judge and chooser for himself we suppose men honest and such as understand the difference between a Moment and Eternity And such men we conceive will think it highly concerns them to be of the true Religion but nothing at all that this or that Religion should be the true And then we suppose that all the necessary points of Religion are plain and easie and consequently every man in this cause to be a competent Judge for himself because it concerns himself to judge right as much as eternal happiness is worth And if through his own default he judge amiss he alone shall suffer for it 17. Fourthly In Civil Controversies we are obliged only to external passive obedience and not to an internal and active We are bound to obey the sentence of the Judge or not to resist it but not alwayes to believe it just But in matters of Religion such a Judge is required whom we should be obliged to believe to have judged right So that in Civil Controversies every honest understanding man is fit to be a Judge But in Religion none but he that is infallible 18. Fifthly In Civil Causes there is means and power when the Judge hath decreed to compell men to obey his sentence otherwise I believe Laws alone would be to as much purpose for the ending of differences as Laws and Judges both But all the power in the world is neither fit to convince nor able to compell a man's conscience to consent to any thing Worldly terrour may prevail so far as to make men profess a Religion which they believe not such men I mean who know not that there is a Heaven provided for Martyrs and a Hell for those that dissemble such Truths as are necessary to be professed But to force either any man to believe what he believes not or any honest man to dissemble what he does believe if God commands him to profess it or to profess what he does not believe all the Powers in the World are too weak with all the Powers of Hell to assist them 19. Sixthly In Civil Controversies the case cannot be so put but there may be Judge to end it who is not a party In Controversies of Religion it is in a manner impossible to be avoided but the Judge must be a party For this must be the first Whether he be a Judge or no and in that he must be a party Sure I am the Pope in the Controversies of our time is a chief party for it highly concerns him even as much as his Popedom is worth not to yield any one point of his Religion to be erroneous And he is a man subject to like passions with other men And therefore we may justly decline his sentence for fear temporal respects should either blind his judgement or make him pronounce against it 20. Seventhly In Civil Controversies it is impossible Titius should hold the land in question and Sempronius too and therefore either the Plaintiff must injure the Defendant by disquieting his possession or the Defendant wrong the Plaintiff by keeping his right from him But in Controversies of Religion the Case is otherwise I may hold my opinion and do you no wrong and you
yours and do me none Nay we may both of us hold our opinion and yet do our selves no harm provided the difference be not touching any thing necessary to salvation and that we love truth so well as to be diligent to inform our Conscience constant in following it 21. Eighthly For the deciding of Civil Controversies men may appoint themselves a Judge But in matters of Religion this office may be given to none but whom God hath designed for it who doth not alwayes give us those things which we conceive most expedient for our selves 22. Ninthly and Lastly For the ending of Civil Controversies Who does not see it is absolutely necessary that not only Judges should be appointed but that it should be known and unquestioned who they are Thus all the Judges of our Land are known men known to be Judges and no man can doubt or question but these are the Men. Otherwise if it were a disputable thing Who were these Judges and they had no certain warrant for their Authority but only some Topical congruities Would not any man say such Judges in all likelihood would rather multiply Controversies than end them So likewise if our Saviour the King of Heaven had intended that all Controversies in Religion should be by some visible Judge finally determined Who can doubt but in plain terms he would have expressed himself about this matter He would have said plainly The Bishop of Rome I have appointed to decide all emergent Controversies For that our Saviour designed the Bishop of Rome to this Office and 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 leave it to be drawn out of uncertain Principles by thirteen or fourteen more uncertain Consequences He that can believe it let him 23. All these Reasons I hope will convince you that though we have and have great necessity of Judges in Civil and Criminal Causes yet you may not conclude from thence that there is any publique authorized Judge to determine Controversies in Religion nor any necessity there should be any 24. But the Scripture stands in need of some watchful and unerring eye to guard it by means of whose assured Vigilancy we may undoubtedly receive it sincere and pure Very true but this is no other than the watchful eye of Divine Providence the goodness whereof will never suffer that the Scripture should be depraved and corrupted but that in them should be always extant a conspicuous and plain way to eternal happiness Neither can any thing be more palpably unconsistent with his goodness than to suffer Scripture to be undiscernably corrupted in any matter of moment and yet to exact of men the Belief of those verities which without their fault or knowledge or possibility of prevention were defaced out of them So that God requiring of men to believe Scripture in its purity ingages himself to see it preserved in sufficient purity and you need not fear but he will satisfie his engagement You say We can have no assurance of this but your Churches Vigilancy But if we had no other we were in a hard case for Who could then assure us that your Church hath 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 raised Office of Assurance give us that that reading is true which you now receive and that false which you reject Certainly they that anciently received and made use of those divers Copies were not all guarded by the Churches Vigilancy from having their Scripture altered from the purity of the Original in many places For of different readings it is not in nature impossible that all should be false but more than 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 means have we to be ascertained of it First the thing is not evident of it self which is evident because many do not believe it Neither can any thing be pretended to give evidence to it but only some places of Scripture of whose incorruption more than 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 Churche's Vigilancy and the Churche's Vigilancy by the incorruption of some places of Scripture and again the incorruption of those places by the Churche's Vigilancy If you name any other means then that means which secures me of the Scripture's incorruption in those places will also serve 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 be blocked up or made invisible I know no other means I mean no other natural and rational means to be assured hereof than I have that any other Book is uncorrupted For though I have a greater degree of rational and humane Assurance of that than this in regard of divers considerations which make it more credible That the Scripture hath been preserved from any material alteration yet my Assurance of both is of the same kind and condition both Moral Assurances and neither Physical or Mathematical 25. To the next Argument the Reply is obvious That though we do not believe the Books of Scripture to be canonical because they say so For other Books that are not Canonical may say they are and those that are so may say nothing of it yet we believe not this upon the Authority of your Church but upon the Credibility of Universal Tradition which is a thing Credible of it self and therefore fit to be rested on whereas the Authority of your Church is not so And therefore your rest thereon is not Rational 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 means I only know I might err but by replying on you I know I should err But yet to return you one Suppose for another suppose I should for this and all other things submit to her direction How could she assure me that I should not be misled by doing so She pretends indeed infallibility herein but how can she assure us that she hath it What by Scripture That you say cannot assure us of its own Infallibility and therefore not of yours What then by Reason That you say may deceive in other things and why not in this How then will she assure us hereof By saying so Of this very affirmation there will remain the same Question still How can it prove it self to be infallibly true Neither can there be an end of the life multiplied Demands till we rest in something evident of it self which demonstrates to the world that this Church
between these two We receive the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received and we receive those that are commonly received because they are so To say this were indeed to make being commonly received a Rule or reason to know the Canon by But to say the former doth no more make it a Rule then you should make the Church of England the Rule of your receiving them if you should say as you may The Books of the New Testament we receive for Canonical as they are received by the Church of England 45. You demand Upon what infallible ground we agree with Luther against you in some and with you against Luther in others And I also demand Upon what infallible ground you hold your Canon and agree neither with us nor Luther For sure your differing from us both is of it selfe no more apparently reasonable than our agreeing with you in part and in part with Luther If you say Your Churches infallibility is your ground I demand again some infallible ground both for the Churches infallibility and for this that Yours is the Church and shall never cease multiplying demands upon demands until you settle me upon a Rock I mean give such an Answer whose Truth is so evident that it needs no further evidence If you say This is Universal Tradition I reply your Churches infallibility is not built upon it and that the Canon of Scripture as we receive it is For we do not profess our selves so absolutely and undoubtedly certain neither do we urge others to be so of those Books which have been doubted as of those that never have 46. The Conclusion of your Tenth § is That the Divinity of a writing cannot be known from it self alone but by some extrinsecal Authority Which you need not prove for no wise man denies it But then this Authority is that of Universal Tradition not of Your Church For to me it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Gospel of S. Matthew is the Word of God as that all which your Church sayes is true 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 and that among other inducements and enforcements hereunto internal arguments have 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 goodness as the Miracles by which it was confirmed were great I should want one main Pillar of my faith and for want of it I fear should be much stagger'd in it Now this and nothing else did the Doctor mean in saying The Believer sees by that glorious Beam of Divine light which shines in Scripture and by many internal Arguments that the Scripture is of Divine Authority By this saith he he sees it that is he is moved to and strengthened 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 quarrel 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 Paragragh I am as willing it should be true as you are to have it and so let it passe as a discourse wherein we are wholly unconcerned You might have met with an Answerer that would not have suffered you to have 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 corporal light is by it self alone able to determine and move our understanding to assent yet notwithstanding this supposal Faith still you say must go before Scripture because as the light is visible only to those that have eyes so the Scripture only to those that have the Eye of Faith But to my understanding if Scripture do move and determine our Understanding to assent then the Scripture and its moving must be before this assent as the cause must be before its own effect now this very assent is nothing else but Faith and Faith nothing else than the Understanding's assent And therefore upon this supposal 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 presupposed before the assent of Faith unto which it moves and determines and consequently if this supposition of yours were true there should need no other means precedent to Scripture to beget Faith Scripture it self being able as here you suppose to determine and move the Understanding to assent that is to believe 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 conceive 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 soul that is the Understanding 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 presupposeth the Eye which it determines as every Action doth the object on which it is imployed yet it self 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 moves the Understanding to assent the Understanding that is the eye and object on which it workes must be before this influence upon it But the Assent that is the beliefe whereto the Scripture moves and the Underis moved which answers to the act of seeing must come after For if it did assent already To what purpose should the Scripture do that which was done before Nay indeed How were it possible it should be so any more than a Father can beget a Son that he hath already Or an Architect built a house that is built already Or than this very world can be made again before it be unmade Transubstantion indeed is fruitful of such Monsters But they that have not sworn themselves to the defence of Error will easily perceive that jam factum facere and factum infectum facere are equally impossible But I digress 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 means precedent to Scripture to beget faith this can be no other than the Church By the Church we know you doe and must understand the Roman Church so that in effect you say no man can have faith but he must be moved to it by your Churches Authority And that is to say that the King and all other Protestants
others as they were not no marvel though they have past upon them some a heavier and some a milder some an absolving and some a condemning sentence The least 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 Venial where there is no malice of the will conjoyned with it And if it be yet as the most malignant poyson will not poyson him that receives with it a more powerful Antidote so I am confident your own Doctrin will force you to confess that whosoever dies with Faith in Christ and Contrition for all sins known and unknown in which heap all his sinful errors must be comprized can no more be hurt by any the most malignant and pestilent error than S. Paul by the Viper which he shook off into the fire Now touching the necessity of Repentance from dead works and Faith in Christ Jesus the Son 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 go about to chuse out of Scripture all these Propositions and Doctrines which integrate and make up the body of Christian Religion peradventure there would not be so an exact agreement amongst them as some say there was between the 70. Interpreters in translating the Old Testament yet thus far without controversie they do all agree that in the Bible all these things are contained and therefore that whosoever doth 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 mind believe all things Fundamental It being not-Fundamental nor required of Almighty God to believe the true sense of Scripture in all places but only that we should endeavour to do so and be prepared in mind to do 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 find 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 hurtful 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 he made use of it he should infallibly find it successful what wise man would not think they agreed sufficiently for his direction to the recovery of his health Just so these Protestant Doctors with whose discords you make such Tragedies agreeing in Thesi thus far That the Scripture evidently conteins all things necessary to Salvation both for matter of Faith and of Practice and that whosoever believes it and endeavours to find the true sense of it and to conform his life unto it shall certainly perform all things necessary to Salvation and undoubtedly be saved agreeing I say thus far 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 Errors 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 Errors be destructive of Salvation or no yet in this they consent that Errors they are and hurtful to Religion though not destructive of Salvation Now that which God requires of us is this That we should believe the Doctrins of the Gospel to be Truths not all necessary Truths for all are not so and consequently the repugnant Errors to be falshoods yet not all such falshoods as unavoidably draw with them damnation upon all that hold them for all do not so 53. Yea but you say It is very requisite we should agree upon a particular Catalogue of Fundamental 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 self 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 contains all necessary points of Faith and know that I believe explicitely all that is exprest in Scripture and implicitely all that is contained in them Now he that believes 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 believe 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 Fundamentals And therefore if this be all your reason to demand a particular Catalogue of Fundamentals we cannot but think your demand unreasonable Especially having your self expressed the cause of the difficulty of it and that is Because Scripture doth deliver Divine Truths but seldom qualifies them or declares whether they be or be not absolutely necessary to salvation Yet not so seldom but that out of it I could give you an abstract of the Essential parts of Christianity if it were necessary but I have shewed it not so by confuting your reason pretended for the necessity of it and at this time I have no leisure to do you courtesies that are so troublesom to my self Yet thus much I will promise that when you deliver a particular Catalogue of your Church-Proposals with one hand you shall receive a particular Catalogue of what I conceive Fundamental with the other For as yet I see no such fair proceeding as you talk of nor any performance on your own part of that which so clamorously you require on ours For as for the Catalogue which here you have given us in saying You are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholike visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God it is like a covey of one Partridge or a flock of one Sheep or a Fleet composed of one Ship or an Army of one man The Author
Copartners to be guilty of that crime and sheweth in what manner they might with great ease and quietness have rectified their consciences about the pretended errors of the Church S. Cyprian say you was a peaceable (l) Pag. 124. and modest man dissented from others in his judgement but without any breach of Charity condemned no man much less 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 lest them to their liberty Did your Reformers imitate this manner of proceeding Did they censure no man much less 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 believe the Points wherein Luther differs from us not to be fundamental or necessary and why do you not thence infer the like THEREFORE he should not have proceeded to censure others In a word since their disagreement from us concerned only Points which were not fundamental they should have believed that they might have been deceived as well as the whole visible Church which you say may erre in such Points and therefore their Doctrins being not certainly true and certainly not necessary they could not give sufficient cause to depart from the Communion of the Church 42. In other places you write so much as may serve us to prove that Luther and his followers ought to have deposed and rectified their consciences As for example when you say When the Church (m) Pag. 105. hath declared herself in any matter of opinion or of rites her declaration obliges all her children to peace and external obedience Nor is it fit or lawful for any private man to oppose his judgment to the publique as Luther and his fellows did He may offer his opinion to be considered of so he do it with evidence or great probability of Scripture or reason and very modestly still containing himself within the dutiful respect which he oweth but if he will factiously advance his own conceits his own conceits and yet grounded upon evidence of Scripture and despise the Church so far as to cut off her Communion he may be justly branded and condemned for a Schismatique yea and an Heretique also in some degree and in foro exteriori though his opinion were true and much more if it be false Could any man even for a Fee have spoken more home to condemn your Predecessors of Schism or Heresie Could they have stronger Motives to oppose the Doctrin of the Church and leave her Communion than evidence of Scripture And yet according to your own words they should have answered and rectified their conscience by your Doctrin that though their opinion were true and grounded upon evidence of Scripture or Reason yet it was not lawful for any private maâ— to oppose his judgment to the publique which obligeth all Christians to peace and external 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 et 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 behave themselves in the face of all Christian Churches as if indeed they were not Reformers but Schismatiques and Heretiques or as Pagans and Publicans I thank you for your ingenuous confession in recompence whereof I will do a deed of Charity by putting you in minde into what Labyrinths you are brought by teaching that the Church may erre in some Points of Faith and yet that it is not lawful for any man to oppose his judgement or leave her Communion though he have evidence of Scripture against her Will you have such a man to dissemble against his conscience or externally deny a truth known to be contained in holy Scripture How much more coherently do Catholiques proceed who believe the universal 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 have alleadged out of you The will of God is saith he to have (n) In his preface to his Bookes of Ecclesiastical Policy Sect. 6. Pag. 28. them do whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and final decision shall determine yea though it seem 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 be guilty of Schism And must not M. Hooker either acknowledge the universal infallibility of the Church or else drive men into the perplexities and labyrinths of dissembling against their conscience whereof now I speak Not unlike to this is your Doctrin delivered elsewhere Before the Nicene Councel say you many (o) Pag. 132. good Catholique Bishops were of the same opinion with the Donatists that the Baptism of Heretiques was ineffectual and with the Novatians that the Church ought not to absolve some grievous sinners These errors therefore if they had gone no further were not in themselves Heretical 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 unity in her government to which all wise and peacable 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 prove that we oppose any declaration of the Catholique Church c. and therefore he doth unjustly charge us either with Schism or Heresie These words manifestly condemne your Reformers who opposed the visible Church in many of her Declarations Doctrins 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 Schism and Heresie And it is to be observed that you grant the Donatists to have been very justly branded for Schismatiques although their opposition against the Church did concerne as you hold a Point not Fundamental to the Faith and which according to S. Augustin cannot be proved out of Scripture alone and therefore either doth evidently convince that the Church is universally infallible even in Points not Fundamental or else that it is Schism 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 of Points not Fundamental though it were untruly supposed that she erred in such Points But by the
pardon the errours of an erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should err with the Church or if we do not that we should against conscience profess the errours of it 71. Ad § 24. But Schismatiques from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the errours of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schism Ans True they may make the same Answer and the same defence as we do as a murtherer can cry Not guilty as well as an innocent person but not so truly nor so justly The question is not what may be pretended but what can be proved by Schismatiques They may object errours to other Churches as well as we do to yours but that they prove their accusation so strongly as we can that appears not To the Priests and Elders of the Jews imposing that sacred silence mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles Saint Peter and St. John answered They must obey God rather than men The three Children to the King of Babylon gave in effect the same answer Give me now any factious Hypocrite who makes Religion the pretence and cloak of his Rebellion and Who sees not that such a one may answer for himself in those very formal words which the holy Apostles and Martyrs made use of And yet I presume no Christian will deny but this Answer was good in the mouth of the Apostles and Martyrs though it were obnoxious to be abused by Traytors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismatiques may make use of this Answer therefore all that do make use of it are Schismatiques But moreover it is to be observed that the chief part of our defence that you deny your communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your doctrin cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72. But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schisms and therefore it must not be forsaken Ans We must not do evil to avoid evil neither are all courses presently lawful by which inconveniences may be avoided If all men would submit themselves to the chief Mufty of the Turks it is apparent there-would be no divisions yet unity is not to be purchased at so dear a rate It were a thing much to be desired that there were no divisions yet difference of opinions touching points controverted is rather to be chosen than unanimous concord in damned errours As it is better for men to go to heaven by divers ways or rather by divers paths of the same way than in the same path to go on peaceably to hell Amica Pax magis amica Veritas 73. But there can be no just cause to forsake the Church so the Doctor grants who notwithstanding teacheth that the Church may err in points not fandamental therefore neither is the Roman Church to be forsaken for such errours Ans There can be no just cause to forsake the Church absolutely and simply in all things that is to cease being a member of the Church This I grant if it will do you any service But that there can be no just cause to forsake the Church in some things or to speak more properly to forsake some opinions and practices which some true Church retains and defends this I deny and you mistake the Doctor if you think he affirms it 74. Ad § 26 27. What prodigious doctrins say you are these Those Protestants who believe that your Church erred in points necessary to salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schism But others c. Prodigious doctrins indeed But who I pray are they that teach them Where does D. Potter accuse those Protestants of damnable Schism who left your Church because they hold it erroneous in necessary points What Protestant is there that holds not that you taught things contrary to the plain precepts of Christ both Ceremonial in mutilating the Communion and Moral in points of Superstition and Idolatry and most bloody tyranny which is without question to err in necessary matters Neither does D. Potter accuse any man of Schism for holding so if he should he should call himself a Schismatique Only he says such if there be any such as affirm that ignorant souls among you who had no means to know the truth cannot possibly be saved that their wisdom and charity cannot be justified Now you your self have plainly affirmed That ignorant Protestants dying with contrition may be saved and yet would be unwilling to be thought to say that Protestants err in no points necessary to salvation For that may be in it self and in ordinary course where there are means of knowledge necessary which to a man invincibly ignorant will prove not necessary Again where doth D. Potter suppose as you make him that there were other Protestants who believed that your Church had no errours Or where does he say they did well to forsake her upon this ridiculous reason because they judged that she retained all means necessary to salvation Do you think us so stupid as that we cannot distinguish between that which D. Potter says and that which you make him say He vindicates Protestants from Schism two ways The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismatiques never have because they that have it are no Schismatiques For schism is always a causeless separation The other is because they did not joyn with their separation an uncharitable damning of all those from whom they did divide themselves as the manner of Schismatiques is Now that which he intends for a circumstance of our separation you make him make the cause of it and the motive to it And whereas he says Though we separate from you in some things yet we acknowledge your Church a member of the body of Christ and therefore are not Schismatiques You make him say most absurdly We did well to forsake you because we judged you a member of the body of Christ Just as if a brother should leave his brothers company in some ill courses and should say to him Herein I forsake you yet I leave you not absolutely for I acknowledge you still to be my brother and shall use you as a brother And you perverting his speech should pretend that he had said I leave your company in these il courses and I do well to do so because you are my brother so making that the cause of leaving him which indeed is the cause that he left him no farther 75. But you say The very reason for which he acquitteth himself from Schism is because he holds that the Church which they forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ Ans This is true But can you not perceive a
evident and therefore according to your doctrin no formal Heresie The third saies indeed that of the Professors of Christianity some shall arise that shall teach Heresie But not one of them all that says or intimates that whosoever separates from the Visible Church in what state soever is certainly an heretique Heretiques I confess do always do so But they that do so are are not always Heretiques for perhaps the state of the Church may make it necessary for them to do so as Rebels always disobey the command of their King yet they which disobey a King's command which perhaps may be unjust are not presently Rebels 21 Your Allegations out of Vincentius Prosper and Cyprian are liable to these exceptions 1. That they are the sayings of men not assisted by the Spirit of God and whose Authority 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 Heresie and the former speaking plainly of separation from Universality 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 doctrin of the Ancient and because she had done so and so far forth as she had done so 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 Schism without any mixture of Heresie And a man may be justly excommunicated for many other sufficient causes besides Heresie Lastly a man may be divided by an unjust excommunication and be hoth before and after a very good Catholique and therefore you cannot maintain it Universally 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 See of S. Peter I conceive you mean as it is that particular Church is the mark of Heresie Which kind of argument I might well refuse to answer unless you would first promise me that whensoever I should produce as plain sentences of as great a number of Fathers as ancient for any doctrin whatsoever that you will subscribe to it though it fall out to be contrary to the doctrin of the Roman Church For I conceive nothing in the world more unequal or unreasonable then that you should press us with such Authorities as these and think your 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 tribunal of the Fathers nay not of the Fathers whose sentences are here alleadged Let us consider them in order and I doubt not to make it appear that far the greater part of them nay al of them that are any way considerable fal short of your purpose 23. S. Hierome you say writing to Pope Damasus saith I am in the Communion of the Chair 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 again that he says only that he was then in Communion with the Chair of Peter Not that he alwayes would or of necessity must be so for his resolution to the contrary is too evident out of that which he saith elsewhere which shall be produced hereafter He says that the Church at that present was built upon that Rock but Not that only Nor that alwayes Nay his judgment as shall appear is express to the contrary And so likewise the rest of his expressions if we mean to reconcile Hierome with Hierome must be 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 doctrin which he there intreats of For otherwise had he conceiv'd it necessary for him and all men to conform their judgment in matters of faith to the judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome how came it to pass that he chose rather to believe the Epistle to the Hebrews Canonical upon the authority of the Eastern Church than to reject it from the Canon upon the authority of the Roman How comes it to pass 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 fear you will lose your Fort by maintaining your Out-works and by avoiding this run into a greater danger of being forc'd to confess the present Roman Church opposite herein to the Ancient How was it possible that he should ever believe that Liberius Bishop of Rome either was or could have been brought over by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Aquileia Hierom. de scrip Eccl. tit Fortunatianus 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 1300 years almost after the thing is said to be done and speaking for themselves in their own Cause rather than the dis-interessed time-fellows or immediate-Successors of Liberius himself 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 Angel I suppose he could not have said so with any coherence to his own belief and therefore conceive it undeniable that what he said then to Damasus he said it though perhaps he streined 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 later could not then but agree with the former But that this Rule was perpetual and that no man could ever agree with the Catholique Bishops but he must
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 appears by the answer of the same Polycrates to Pope Victor Euseb hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron in Hieron in script Eccl. in Polyer which is inserted in the writings of Eusebius and of Saint JEROM and which JEROM 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 universal communion of the Church To the first then we say that so farr is this Epistle of Polycrates from abating and diminishing the Popes authority that contrariwise it greatly magnifies and exalts it For although Polycrates blinded with the love of the custom of his Nation which he believed 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. JOHN'S tradition maintains it obstinately Nevertheless this that he answers speaking in his own Name Exod. 12. Hieronym ubi supra and in the name of the Council of the Bishops of Asia to whom he presided I fear not those that threeaten us for my Elders have said It is better to obey God than man Doth it not shew that had it not been that be believed the Pope's threat was against the express Word of God there had been cause to fear it and he had been obliged to obey him for m who knows not that this answer It is better to obey God than men is not to be made but to those whom we were obliged to obey if their commundements were not contrary to the commandements of God And that he adds that he had called the Bishops of Asia Euseb Hist Eccl l. 5. c. 23. to a National Council being n summoned to it by the Pope doth it not insinuate that the other Councils whereof Eusebius speaks that were holden about this matter through all the Provinces of the Earth and particularly that of Palestina Bâ—da in frag de Aequinociio veâ—â—aâ— which if you believe 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 Universal Church And that the Councils of Nicea of Constantinople of Ephesus embraced the Censure of Victor and excommunicated those that observed the custom of Polycrates that was deceived in believing that the Popes commandement was against Gods commandement And that S. JEROM himself celebrates the Paschal Homilies of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria which followed the Order of Nicea concerning the Pasche doth it not justifie that when S. JEROM 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 Cardinal's words the most material 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 Arrianism 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 says he says out of Irenaeus Neither doth or can the Cardinal deny the story to be true and therefore he goes about by indirect Arts to foil it and cast a blurr upon it Lastly whensoever Eusebius says any thing which the Cardinal thinks for the advantage of his side he cites him and then he is no Arrian or at least he would not take that for an answer to the arguments he draws out of him b That Ruffinus was enemy to the Roman Church is said but not proved neither can it be c Eusebius says the same also of caeteri omnes Episcopi all the other Bishops That they advised Victor to keep those things that belonged to peace and unity and that they sharply reprehended Victor for having done otherwise d This is said but no offer made of any proof of it The Cardinal thinks we must take every thing upon his word They to whom the Tradition was delivered Polycrates 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 Cardinal 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 Judge of what was necessary to be believed and done what not what was universal 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 conform themselves to the Church of Rome f This is to suppose that Excommunication is an Act or Argument or sign of Power and 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 Equals upon Equals and by Inferiours upon Superiours if the Equals or Inferiours thought their Equals or Superiours did any thing which deserved it g And what is this but to confess 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 proof 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 preferrs the power of the Roman-Church And it is evident out of the Council of Chalcedon * Cant. 28. That all the Principality which it had was given it not by God but by the Church in regard it was seated in the Imperial City Whereupon when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperial City they decreed that that Church should have equal 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
praeparatione cordis in a full resolution of the heart and entire disposition of the mind So that though God be the sole proper Efficient Cause and Christ as Mediatour the sole proper Meritorious Cause of our Justification yet these inherent dispositions are exacted on our part as causae sine quibus non as necessary conditions to be found in us before God will perform this great work freely and graciously towards us and only for the Merits of Christ 43. This Assertion may Reas 1 I suppose be demonstrated first from the nature of a Covenant For unless there be pre-required conditions on man's part to be perform'd before God will proportion his reward the very nature of a Covenant is destroy'd And it will not boot to answer that though there be no qualifications required in a man before he obtain Remission of sins yet they are to be found in us before we be made capable of Salvation For as I have shew'd before Sol. 1 Salvation is as properly a gracious Act of Mercy as free and undeserved a gift as truly bestowed on us only for the Merits of Christ as Remission of sins and therefore may as well consist without any change in us as the former And secondly If that proposition of S. Paul We are Justified by Faith Sol. 2 without the works of the Law exclude all conditions to be perform'd by man If it exclude not only the righteousness of the Law which indeed it doth but the obedience of Faith or the Gospel likewise from being necessary dispositions in us before we receive remission of sins Then another saying of his parallel to this will exclude as well the necessity of an Evangelical Obedience to our salvation For saith S. Paul Eph. 2.8 Eph. 2.8 By Grace are ye saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of Works lest any man should boast Put I hope no man will be so unchristian-like as to exclude the necessity of our good works to salvation for all this saying of S. Paul therefore they may as well be pre-required to Remission of sins notwithstanding the former place 44. Secondly Reas 2 If there be no necessity of any pre-disposition in us before Remission of sins then a man may have his sins forgiven him and so become a person accepted of God whilest he is a person unregenerate unsanctified whilest he is dead in trespasses and sins Eph. 2.1 c. whilest he walks according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the air the Spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience whilest he has his conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind being notwithstanding his Justification a child of wrath as much as the profanest heathen though the veriest reprobate in the world lastly though he be no child of Abraham according to faith that is not having in him that faith which was imputed to Abraham for righteousness Now whether this Divinity be consonant to Gods Word let your own consciences be Judges 45. A third Argument to prove the Truth of the former Assertion Reas 3 shall be taken from several Texts of Scripture where Justification even as it is taken for Remission of sins is ascribed to other virtues besides Faith whether it be taken for a particular virtue or for the object thereof For example Our Saviour saith expresly Mat. 12.37 By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned where we see Justification is taken in that proper sense in which we maintain it against the Papists Again If you forgive men their trespasses Mat. 6.14 45. your heavenly Father will also forgive you But if you forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father forgive your trespasses Again our Saviour speaking concerning Mary saith Her sins are forgiven her because she loved much Luk. 7.47 If the time or your patience could suffer me Reas 4 I might add a fourth Reason to prove my former Assertion which is the clearness and evidence of agreement and reconciliation between S. Paul and S. James in this point upon these grounds without any new invented Justification before men which is a conceit taken up by some men only to shift off an Adversary's argument which otherwise would press them too hard they think for S. Paul's Faith taken for the obedience of the Gospel would easily accord with S. James his holy and undefiled Religion before God Jam. 1.27 or works which is all one And S. James would be S. Paul's expositour without any injury or detraction at all from the merits of Christ or Gods free and undeserved mercy to us in him But I must hasten 46. The full meaning then of S. Paul's Proposition We are justified by Faith and not by the works of the Law and by consequence the state of the whole controversie of Justification in brief may be this That if we consider the efficient cause of our Justification it is only God which Justifies if that for which we are justified that is the meritorious cause thereof it is not for any thing in our selves but only for the obedience and satisfaction of our Blessed Saviour that God will Justifie us But if we have respect to what kind of Conditions are to be found in us before Christ will suffer us to be made partakers of the benefit of his Merits then we must say that we are not justified by such a Righteousness so perfect absolute and complete as the Law of Works does require but by the righteousness of the Gospel by a Righteousness proportionable to that Grace which God is pleased to bestow on us not by the perfection but sincerity of our obedience to the New Covenant And the Apostle's main argument will serve to prove this to any understanding most undeniably S. Paul has demonstrated that if we consider the rigour of the Law all men both Jews and Gentiles are concluded under sin and most necessarily obnoxious to Gods wrath Which Reason of his would not be at all prevailing unless by works of the Law he intended only such a perfect obedience as the Law requires which by reason of mans weakness is become impossible unto him For it might easily be reply'd upon him thus We confess no man can fulfil the Law but the conditions of the Gospel are not only possible but by the assistance of Gods Spirit easie to be performed so that though for this reason the former Righteousness be excluded from our Justification not only quoad meritum but also quoad praesentiam yet the later Evangelical Righteousness is excluded from our Justification only quoad Meritum 47. But I perceive an Objection ready to assault me and I will impartially assist the force and strength thereof against my self with all the advantage I can It is to this purpose When men are disputing in the Schools or discoursing in the Pulpit they
damnable errors Remember I pray you what your self affirms pag. 69. where speaking of our Church and yours you say All the difference is from the weeds which remain there and here are taken away Yet neither here perfectly nor every where alike Behold a fair confession of corruptions still remaining in your Church which you can only excuse by saying they are not Fundamental as likewise those in the Roman Church are confessed to be not Fundamental What man of judgment will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupt one 22. I still proceed to impugn you expresly upon your own grounds You say That it is comfort enough for the Church that the Lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers but she may not hope to triumph over all sin and error till she be in heaven Now if it be comfort enough to be secured from all capital dangers which can arise only from error in Fundamental Points why were not your first Reformers content with enough but would needs dismember the Church out of a pernicious greediness of more than enough For this enough which according to you is attained by not erring in Points Fundamental was enjoyed before Luther's reformation unless you will now against your self affirm that long before Luther there was no Church free from error in Fundamental Points Moreover if as you say no Church may hope to triumph over all error till she be in heaven You must either grant that errors not Fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Church or else you must affirm that all Community may and ought to be forsaken and so there will be no end of Schisms or rather indeed there can be no such thing as Schism because according to you all communities are subject to errors not Fundamental for which if they may be lawfully forsaken it followeth clearly that it is not Schism to forsake them Lastly since it is not lawful to leave the Communion of the Church for abuses in life and manners because such miseries cannot be avoided in this world of temptation and since according to your Assertion no Church may hope to triumph over all sin and error You must grant that as she ought not to be left by reason of sin so neither by reason of errors not Fundamental because both sin and error are according to you impossible to be avoided till she be in heaven 23. Furthermore I ask Whether it be the Quantity and Number or Quality and Greatness of doctrinal errors that may yield sufficient cause to relinquish the Churches Communion I prove that neither Not the Quality which is supposed to be beneath the degree of Points Fundamental or necessary to Salvation Not the Quantity or Number for the foundation is strong enough to support all such unnecessary additions as you tearm them And if they once weighed so heavy as to overthrow the foundation they should grow to Fundamental errors into which your self teach the Church cannot fall Hay and stubble say you and such (g) Pag. 155. unprofitable stuffe laid on the roof destroys not the house whilest the main pillars are standing on the foundation And tell us I pray you the precise number of errors which cannot be tolerated I know you cannot do it and therefore being uncertain whether or no you have cause to leave the Church you are certainly obliged not to forsake her Our blessed Saviour hath declared his will that we forgive a private offender seventy seven times that is without limitation of quantity of time or quality of trespasses and why then dare you alledge his command that you must not pardon his Church for errors acknowledged to be not Fundamental What excuse can you feign to your selves who for Points not necessary to Salvation have been occasions causes and Authors of so many mischiefs as could not but unavoidably accompany so huge a breach in Kingdoms in Common-wealths in private persons in publique Magistrates in body in soul in goods in life in Church in the State by Schisms by rebellions by war by famin by plague by bloud-shed by all sorts of imaginable calamities upon the whole face of the earth wherein as in a map of Desolation the heaviness of your crime appears under which the world doth pant 24. To say for your excuse that you left not the Church but her errors doth not extenuate but aggravate your sin For by this device you sow seeds of endless Schisms and put into the mouth of aâ— Separatists a ready Answer how to avoid the note of Schism from your Protestant Church of England or from any other Church whatsoever They will I say answer as you do prompt that your Church may be forsaken if she fall into errors though they be not Fundamental and further that no Church must hope to be free from such errors which two grounds being once laid it will not be hard to infer the consequence that she may be forsaken 25. From some other words of D. Potter I likewise prove that for Errors not Fundamental the Church ought not to be forsaken There neither was saith he nor can be (h) Pag. 75. any just cause to depart from the Church of Christ no more than from Christ himself To depart from a particular Church and namely from the Church of Rome in some Doctrins and practises there might be just and necessary cause though the Church of Rome wanted nothing necessary to Salvation Mark his Doctrin that there can be no just cause to depart from the Church of Christ and yet he teacheth that the Church of Christ may err in Points not Fundamental Therefore say I we cannot forsake the Roman Church for Points not Fundamental for then we might also forsake the Church of Christ which your self deny and I pray you consider whether you do not plainly contradict your self while in the words above recited you say there can be no just cause to forsake the Catholique Church and yet that there may be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome since you grant that the Church of Christ may err in Points not Fundamental and that the Roman Church hath erred only in such Points as by and by we shall see more in particular And thus much be said to disprove their chiesest Answer that they left not the Church but her corruptions 26. Another evasion D. Potter bringeth to avoid the imputation of Schism and it is because they still acknowledg the Church of Rome to be a Member of the body of Christ and not cut off from the hope of Salvation And this saith he clears us from the (i) Pag. 76. imputation of Schism whose property it is to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates 27. This is an Answer which perhaps you may get some one to approve if first you can put him out of his wits For what prodigious Doctrins are these Those Protestants who believe
that the Church erred in Points necessary to Salvation and for that cause left her cannot be excused from damnable Schism But others who believed that she had no damnable errors did very well yea were obliged to forsake her and which is more miraculous or rather monstrous they did well to forsake her formally and precisely because they judged that she retained all means necessary to Salvation I say because they so judged For the very reason for which he acquitteth himself and condemneth those others as Schismatiques is because he holdeth that the Church which both of them forsook is not cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation whereas those other Zelors deny her to be a member of Christs body or capable of Salvation wherein alone they disagree from D. Potter for in the effect of separation they agree only they do it upon a different motive or reason Were it not a strange excuse if a man would think â—o cloak his rebellion by alleadging that he held the person against whom he rebelleth to be his lawful Soveraign And yet D. Potter thinks himself free from Schism because he forsook the Church of Rome but yet so as that still he held her to be the true Church and to have all necessary means to Salvation But I will no further urge this most solemn foppery and do much more willingly put all Catholiques in mind what an unspeakable comfort it is that our Adversaries are forced to confess that they cannot clear themselves from Schism otherwise than by acknowledging that they do not nor cannot cut off from the hope of Salvation out Church Which is as much as if they should in plain terms say They must be damned unless we may be saved Moreover this evasion doth indeed condemn your zealous brethren of Heresie for denying the Churches perpetuity but doth not clear your self from Schism which consists in being divided from that true Church with which a man agreeth in all points of Faith as you must profess your self to agree with the Church of Rome in all Fundamental Articles For otherwise you should cut her off from the hope of Salvation and so condemn your self of Schism And lastly even according to this your own definition of Schism you cannot clear your self from that crime unless you be content to acknowledge a manifest contradiction in your own Assertions For if you do not cut us off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation how come you to say in another place that you judge a reconciliation with us to be (k) Pag. 20. damnable That to depart from the Church of Rome there might be just and necessary (l) Pag. 77. cause That they that have the understanding and means to discover their error and neglect to use them (m) Pag. 79. we dare not flatter them say you with so easie a censure of hope of Salvation If then it be as you say a property of Schism to cut off from the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates how will you clear your self from Schism who dare not flatter us with so easie a censure and who affirm that a reconciliation with us is damnable But the truth is there is no constancy in your Assertâ—ons by reason of dâ—fficulties which press you on all sides For you are loath to affiâ—m cleerly that we may be saved lest such a grant might be occasion as in all reason it ought to be of the conversion of Protestants to the Roman Church And on the other side if you affirm that our Church erred in Points Fundamental or necessary to Salvation you know not how nor where nor among what company of men to find a perpetual visible Church of Christ before Luther And therefore your best shift is to say and unsay as your occasions command I do not examine your Assertion that it is the property of Schism to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates wherein you are mightily mistaken as appears by your own exampie of the Donatists who were most formal and proper Heretiques and not Schismatiques as Schism is a vice distinct from Heresie Besides although the Donatists and Luciserians whom you also alledge had been meer Schismatiques yet it were against all good Logick from a particular to infer a general Rule to determine what is the property of Schism 28. A third device I find in D. Potter to clear his brethren from Schism There is saith he great difference between (n) Pag. 75. a Schism from them and a Reformation of our selves 29. This I confess is a quaint subtilty by which all Schism and Sin may be as well excused For what devil incarnate could meerly pretend a separation and not rather some oâ—her motive of vertue truth profit or pleasure But now fince their pretended Reformation consisted as they gave out in forsaking the corruptions of the Church the Reformation of themselves and their division from us falls out to be one and the self-same thing Nay we see that although they infinitely disagree in the particulars of their reformation yet they symbolize and consent in the general Point of forsaking our pretended corruptions An evident sign that the thing upon which their thoughts first pitched was not any particular Modell or Idaea of Religion but a setled resolution to forsake the Church of Rome Wherefore this Metaphysical speculation that they intended only to reform themselves cannot possibly excuse them from Schism unless first they be able to prove that they were obliged to depart from us Yet for as much as concernes the fact it self it is clear that Luther's revolt did not proceed from any zeal of reformation The motive which put him upon so wretched and unfortunate a work were Covetousness Ambition Lust Pride Envy and grudging that the promulgation of Indulgences was not committed to himself or such as he desired He himself taketh God to witness that he fell into these troubles casually and (o) Casu non voluntate in has turbaslincidi Deum ipsum testor against his will not upon any intention of Reformation not so much as dreaming or suspecting any change which might (p) Act. et Mon. Pag. 404. happen And he began to preach against Indulgences when he knew not what (q) Sleidan l. 16 fol. 232. the matter meant For saith he I scarcely understood (r) Sleid. lib. 13. fol. 177. then what the name of Indulgences meant In so much as afterwards Luther did much mislâ—ke of his own undertaken course oftentimes saith he wishing (Å¿) Luth in colloq mensal that I had never begun that business And Fox saith It is apparent that (t) Act. Mon. Pag pag. 404. Luther promised Cardinal Cajeran to keepe silence provided also his adversaries would do the like M. Cowper reporteth further that Luther by his letter submitted (u) Cowp in his Chronicle himself to the Pope so