Church to Communicate in her corruptions Or you suppose her Communion uncorrupted If the former and yet will take for granted that all are Schismaticks that leave her Communion though it be corrupted you beg the Question in your proposition If the latter you beg the Question in your supposition for Protestants you know are Peremptory and Unanimous in the Denial of both these things Both that the Communion of the Visible Church was then uncorrupted And that they are truly Schismaticks who leave the Communion of the Visible Church if corrupted especially if the case be so and Luthers was so that they must either leave her Communion or of necessity Communicate with her in her corruptions 26. Besides although it were granted Schism to leave the external Communion of the Visible Church in what state or case so ever it be and that Luther and his followers were Schismaticks for leaving the external Communion of all Visible Churches yet you fail exceedingly of clearing the other necessary point undertaken by you That the Roman Church was then the Visible Church For neither do Protestants as you mistake make the true preaching of the Word and due administration of the Sacraments the notes of the Visible Church but only of a Visible Church now these you know are very different things the former signifying the Church Catholick or the whole Church the latter a Particular Church or a part of the Catholick And therefore suppose out of courtesie we should grant what by argument you can never evince that your Church had these notes yet would it by no means follow that your Church were the Visible Church but only a Visible Church not the whole Catholick but only a part of it 27. Lastly whereas you say that Protestants must either grant that your Church then was the Visible Church or name some other disagreeing from yours and agreeing with Protestants in their particular doctrin or acknowledge there was no Visible Church It is all one as if to use S. Pauls similitude the head should say to the foot either you must grant that I am the whole body or name some other member that is so or confess that there is no body To which the foot might answer I acknowledge there is a body and yet that no member beside you is this body nor yet that you are it but only a part of it And in like manner say we We acknowledge a Church there was corrupted indeed universally but yet such a one as we hope by Gods gracious acceptance was still a Church We pretend not to name any one Society that was this Church and yet we see no reason that can enforce us to confess that yours was the Church but only a part of it and that one of the worst then extant in the World In vain therefore have you troubled your self in proving that we cannot pretend that either the Greeks Waldenses Wickliffites Hussites Muscovites Armenians Georgians Abyssines were then the Visible Church For all this discourse proceeds from a false vain supposition and begs another point in Question between us which is that some Church of one denomination and one Communion as the Roman the Greek c. must be always exclusively to all other Communions the whole Visible Church And though perhaps some weak Protestant having this false principle setled in him that there was to be always some Visible Church of one denomination pure from all error in doctrin might be wrought upon and prevailed with by it to forsake the Church of Protestants yet why it should induce him to go to yours rather than the Greek Church or any other which pretends to perpetual succession as well as yours that I do not understand unless it be for the reason which Aeneas Sylvius gave why more held the Pope above a Council than a Council above the Pope which was because Popes did give Bishopricks and Archbishopricks but Councils gave none and therefore suing in Forma Pauperis were not like to have their cause very well maintained For put the case I should grant of meer favour that there must be always some Church of one Denomination and Communion free from all errors in doctrin and that Protestants had not always such a Church it would follow indeed from thence that I must not be a Protestant But that I must be a Papist certainly it would follow by no better consequence than this if you will leave England you must of necessity go to Rome And yet with this wretched fallacy have I been sometimes abused my self and known many other poor souls seduced not only from their own Church and Religion but unto yours I beseech God to open the eyes of all that love the truth that they may not always be held captive under such miserable delusions 28. Let us come now to the Arguments which you build upon D. Potters own words out of which you promise unanswerable reasons to convince Protestants of Schism 29. But these reasons will easily be answered if the Reader will take along with him these three short Memorandums 30. First That not every separation but only a causeless separation from the external Communion of any Church is the Sin of Schism 31. Secondly That imposing upon men under pain of Excommunication a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a sufficient and necessary cause of separation and that this is the cause the Protestants alledge to justifie their separation from which Church of Rome 32. Thirdly That to leave the Church and to leave the external Communion of a Church is not the same thing That being done by ceasing to be a member of it by ceasing to have those requisites which constitute a man a member of it as faith and obedience This by refusing to communicate with any Church in her Liturgies and publick worship of God This Armour if it be rightly placed will repel all those Batteries which you threaten us with all 33. Ad § 13.14 15. The first is a sentence of S. Austin against Donatus applied to Luther thus If the Church perished what Church brought forth Donatus you say Luther If she could not perish what madness moved the sect of Donatus to separate upon pretence to avoid the Communion of bad men Whereunto one fair answer to let pass many others is obvious out of the second observation That this sentence though it were Gospel as it is not is impertinently applied to Luther and Lutherans Whose pretence of separation be it true or be it false was not as that of the Donatists only to avoid the Communion of bad men but to free themselves from a necessity which but by separating was unavoidable of joyning with bad men in their impieties 34. Ad § 16. Your second onset drives only at those Protestants who hold the true Church was invisible for many ages Which Doctrin if by the true Church be understood the pure Church as you do understand it is a certain truth it
cleanse themselves and yet continue parts of the Body And what reason then in the World is there if the whole visible Church were overcome with Tares and Weeds of superstitions and corruptions but that some members of it might reform themselves and yet continue still true members of the Body of the Church and not be made no members but the better by their Reformation 50. We acknowledge that we cannot as matters now stand Separate from your corruptions but we must depart from your External Communion For you have so ordered things that whosoever will Communicate with you at all must Communicate with you in your corruptions But it is you that will not perceive the difference between being a part of the Church and being in external Communion with all the other parts of it taking for granted that which is certainly false that no two men or Churches divided in external Communion can be both true parts of the Catholick Church 51. We are not to learn the difference between Schism and Heresie for Heresie we conceive an obstinate defence of any Error against any necessary Article of the Christian Faith And Schism a causless separation of one part of the Church from another But this we say That if we convince you of Errors and corruptions professed and practised in your Communion then we cannot be Schismaticks for refusing to joyn with you in the profession of these Errors and the practice of these corruptions And therefore you must free your selves from Error or us from Schism 52. Lastly whereas you say That you have demonstrated against us that Protestants divided themselves from the external Communion of the Visible Church add which external communion was corrupted and we shall confess the accusation and glory in it But this is not that Quod erat demonstrandum but that we divided our selves from the Church that is made our selves Out-laws from it and no members of it And moreover in the Reason of your separation from the external Communion of your Church you are mistaken for it was not so much because she your Church as because your Churches external Communion was corrupted and needed Reformation 53. That a pretence of Reformation will acquit no man from Schism we grant very willingly and therefore say that it concerns every man who separates from any Churches Communion even as much as his Salvation is worth to look most carefully to it that the cause of his separation be just and necessary For unless it be necessary it can very hardly be sufficient But whether a true Reformation of our selves from Errors superstitions and impieties will not justifie our separation in these things our separation I say from them who will not reform themselves and as much as in them lies hinder others from doing so This is the point you should have spoken to but have not As for the sentences of the Fathers to which you refer us for the determination of this Question I suppose by what I have said above the Reader understands by alledging them you have gained little credit to your cause or person And that if they were competent Judges of this Controversie their sentence is against you much rather than for you 56. But your Argument you conceive will be more convincing if we consider that when Luther appeared there were not two distinct Visible true Churches one Pure the other Corrupted but one Church only Ans The ground of this is no way certain nor here sufficiently proved For whereas you say Histories are silent of any such matter I answer there is no necessity that you or I should have read all Histories that may be extant of this matter nor that all should be extant that were written much less extant uncorrupted especially considering your Church which had latly all power in her hands hath been so pernitiously industrious in corrupting the monuments of Antiquity that made against her nor that all Records should remain which were written nor that all should be recorded which was done Lastly whereas you say that supposing a visible pure Church Luther must be a Schismatick who separated from all visible Churches I tell you if you will suppose a Visible Church extant before and when Luther arose conformable to him in all points of Doctrine necessary and profitable then Luther separated not from this Church but adjoyned himself to it Not indeed in place which was not necessary not in external Communion which was impossible but by the Union of Faith and Charity Upon these grounds I say that the ground of this Argument is no way made certain yet because it is not manifestly false I am content to let it pass And for ought I see it is very safe for me to do so for you build nothing upon it which I may not fairly grant For what do you conclude from hence but that seeing there was no Visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external Communion of the Catholick Church Well let this also be granted what will come of it What that Luther must be a Schismatick By no means For not every separation but only a causeless separation from the Communion of the Church we maintain to be Schismatical Hereunto may be added that though the whole Church were corrupted yet properly speaking it is not true that Luther and his Followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the external Communion of it But only that he forsook that Part of it which was corrupted and still would be so and forsook not but only reformed another Part which Part they themselves were and I suppose you will not go about to persuade us that they forsook themselves or their own Communion And if you urge that they joyned themselves to no other part therefore they separated from the whole I say it follows not in as much as themselves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore could no more separate from the whole than from themselves Thus though there were no part of the People of Rome to whom the Plebeians joyned themselves when they made their Secession into the Aventine Hill yet they divided themselves from the Patricians only and not from the whole People because themselves were a part of this People and they divided not from themselves 57. Ad § 18. Here you prove that which no man denies that corruption in manners yields no sufficient cause to leave the Church yet sure it yields sufficient cause to cast them out of the Church that are after the Churches publick admonition obstinate in notorious impieties Neither doth the cutting off such men from the Church lay any necessity upon us either to go out of the World or out of the Church but rather puts these men out of the Church into the World where we may converse with them freely without scandal to the Church Our Blessed Saviour foretold you say that there should be in the Church Tares with choice
you know all Protestants with one consent affirm it to be false and therefore without proof to take it for granted is to beg the Question 4. That supposing Luther and they which did first separate from the Roman Church were guilty of Schism it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this division must be so likewise Which is not so certain as you pretend For they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state Civil or Ecclesiastical do commit a great fault whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration and to the utmost of their power oppose a change though to the former state when continuance of time hath once setled the present Thus have I known some of your own Church condemn the Low-country-men who first revolted from the King of Spain of the sin of Rebellion yet absolve them from it who now being of your Religion there are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the King of Spain 5. That all those which a Christian is to esteem neighbors do concur to make one company which is the Church Which is false for a Christian is to esteem those his neighbors who are not members of the true Church 6. That all the members of the Visible Church are by charity united into one Mystical body Which is manifestly untrue for many of them have no Charity 7. That the Catholick Church signifies one company of faithful people which is repugnant to your own grounds For you require not true faith but only the Profession of it to make men members of the Visible Church 8. That every Heretick is a Schismatick Which you must acknowledge false in those who though they deny or doubt of some point professed by your Church and so are Hereticks yet continue still in the Communion of the Church 9. That all the members of the Catholick Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which though it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true For a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the Churches Communion yet he is still a member of the Church and divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrisostom and Epiphanius that particular men and particular Churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continued members of the Catholick Church These things are in those seven Sections either said or supposed by you untruly without all shew or pretence of proof The rest is an impertinent common place wherein Protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcerned And therefore I pass to the eighth Section 10. Ad. § 8. Here you obtrude upon us a double fallacy One in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three Fathers must be true whereas your selves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood which yet are maintained by more than thrice three Fathers Another in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely which by them are limited and restrained to some particular cases Thus the words of S. Austin cap. 11. lib. 2. cont Parm. That there is no necessity to divide Unity are not spoken absolutely that there never is nor can be any necessity to divide Unity which only were for your purpose but only in such a special case as he there sets down That is When good men tolerate bad men which can do them no spiritual hurt to the intent they may not be separated from those who are spiritually good Then saith he there is no necessity to divide Unity Which very words do clearly give us to understand that it may fall out as it doth in our case that we cannot keep Unity with bad men without spiritual hurt i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties and that then there is a necessity to divide Unity from them I mean to break off conjunction with them in their impieties Which that it was S. Austins mind it is most evident out of the 21. c. of the same book where to Parmenian demanding how can a man remain pure being joyned with those that are corrupted He answers Very true this is not possible if he be joyned with them that is if he commit any evil with them or favour them which do commit it But if he do neither of these he is not joyned with them And presently after these two things retained will keep such men pure and uncorrupted that is neither doing ill nor approving it And therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your Communion a necessity of doing or at least approving many things unlawful certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing Unity either with you or with God and whether of these is rather to be done be ye judges 11. Iraeneus also says not simply which only would do you service there cannot possibly be any so important Reformation as to justifie a Separation from them who will not reform But only they cannot make any corruption so great as is the pernitiousness of a Schism Now They here is a relative and hath an antecedent expressed in Iraeneus which if you had been pleased to take notice of you would easily have seen that what Irenaeus says falls heavy upon the Church of Rome but toucheth Protestants nothing at all For the men he speaks of are such as Propter modicas quaslibet causas for trifling or small causes divide the body of Christ such as speak of peace and make war such as strain at Gnats and swallow Camels And these saith he can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division Now seeing the causes of our separation from the Church of Rome are as we pretend and are ready to justify because we will not be partakers with her in Superstition Idolatry Impiety and most cruel Tyranny both upon the bodies and souls of men Who can say that the causes of our separation may be justly esteemed Modicae quaelibet causae On the other side seeing the Bishop of Rome who was contemporary to Irenaeus did as much as in him lay cut off from the Churches unity many great Churches for not conforming to him in an indifferent matter upon a difference Non de Catholico dogmate sed de Ritu vel Ritus potiùs tempore not about any Catholick Doctrin but only a Ceremony or rather about the time of observing it so Petavius values it which was just all one as if the Church of France should excommunicate those of their own Religion in England for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them And seeing he was reprehended sharply and bitterly for it by most of the Bishops of the World as * Euseb hist l. 5. c. 24. Perron Replic l. 3. c. 2. Eusebius testifies and as Cardinal Perron though mincing the matter yet confesseth by this very Irenaeus himself
is easier for you to declaim as you do than to dispute against it But these men you say must be Hereticks because they separated from the Communion of the Visible Church and therefore also from the Communion of that which they say was invisible In as much as the invisible Church communicated with the visible 35. Ans I might very justly desire some proof of that which so confidently you take for granted That there were no persecuted and oppressed maintainers of the Truth in the days of our Fore-fathers but only such as dissembled their opinions and lived in your Communion And truly if I should say there were many of this condition I suppose I could make my Affirmative much more probable than you can make your Negative We read in Scripture that Elias conceived there was none left besides himself in the whole Kingdom of Israel who had not revolted from God and yet God himself assures us that he was deceived And if such a man a Prophet and one of the greatest erred in his judgment touching his own time and his own Country why may not you who are certainly but a man and subject to the same passions as Elias was mistake in thinking that in former ages in some Countrey or other there were not always some good Christians which did not so much as externally bow their knees to your Baal But this answer I am content you shall take no notice of and think it sufficient to tell you that if it be true that this supposed invisible Church did hypocritically communicate with the visible Church in her corruptions then Protestants had cause nay necessity to forsake their Communion also for otherwise they must have joyned with them in the practice of impieties and seeing they had such cause to separate they presume their separation cannot be Schismatical 36. Yes you reply to forsake the external Communion of them with whom they agree in faith is the most formal and proper sin of Schism Answ Very true but I would fain know wherein I would gladly be informed whether I be bound for fear of Schism to communicate with those that believe as I do only in lawful things or absolutely in every thing whether I am to joyn with them in Superstition and Idolatry and not only in a common profession of the Faith wherein we agree but in a common dissimulation or abjuration of it This is that which you would have them do or else forsooth they must be Schismaticks But hereafter I pray remember that there is no necessity of communicating even with true Believers in wicked actions Nay that there is a necessity herein to separate from them And then I dare say even you being their judge the reasonableness of their cause to separate shall according to my first observation justifie their separation from being Schismatical 37. Arg. But the property of Schism according to D. Potter is to cut off from the hope of salvation the Church from which it separates And these Protestants have this property therefore they are Schismaticks 38. Ans I deny the Syllogism it is no better than this One Smptom of the Plague is a Feaver but such a man hath a Feaver therefore he hath the Plague The true conclusion which issues out of these Premisses should be this Therefore he hath one Symptom of the plague And so likewise in the former therefore they have one property or one quality of Schismaticks And as in the former instance The man that hath one sign of the plague may by reason of the absence of other requisites not have the plague So these Protestants may have something of Schismaticks and yet not be Schismaticks A Tyrant sentencing a man to death for his pleasure and a just judge that condemns a malefactor do both sentence a man to death and so for the matter do both the same thing yet the one does wickedly the other justly What 's the reason because the one hath cause the other hath not In like manner Schismaticks either always or generally denounce damnation to them from whom they separate The same do these Protestants yet are not Schismaticks The Reason because Schismaticks do it and do it without cause and Protestants have cause for what they do The impieties of your Church being generally speaking damnable unless where they are excused by ignorance and expiated at least by a general repentance In fine though perhaps it may be true that all Schismaticks do so yet universal affirmatives are not converted and therefore it follows not by any good Logick that all that do so when there is just cause for it must be Schismaticks The cause in this matter of separation is all in all and that for ought I see you never think of But if these rigid Protestants have just cause to cut off your Church from the hope of salvation How can the milder sort allow hope of salvation to the Members of this Church Ans Distinguish the quality of the Persons censured and this seeming repugnance of their censures will vanish into nothing For your Church may be considered either in regard of those in whom either negligence or pride or worldly fear or hopes or some other voluntary sin is the cause of their ignorance which I fear is the case of the generality of men amongst you or in regard of those who owe their Errors from Truth to want of capacity or default of instruction either in respect of those that might know the truth and will not or of those who would know the truth but all things considered cannot In respect of those that have eyes to see and will not see or those that would gladly see but want eyes or light Consider the former sort of men which your more rigid censures seem especially to reflect upon and the heaviest sentence will not be too heavy Consider the latter and the mildest will not be too mild So that here is no difference but in words only neither are you flattered by the one nor uncharitably censured by the other 39. Your next blow is directed against the milder sort of Protestants who you say involve themselves in the sin of Schism by communicating with those as you call them exterminating Spirits whom you conceive your self to have proved Schismaticks And now load them further with the crime of Heresie For say you if you held your selves obliged under pain of damnation to forsake the Communion of the Roman Church by reason of her Errors which yet you confess were not fundamental shall it not be much more damnable to live in confraternity with these who defend an Error of the failing of the Church which in the Donatists you confess to have been properly Heretical 40. Ans You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themselves obliged not to communicate with you only or principally by reason of your Errors and Corruption For the true reason according to my third observation is not so much because you maintain Errors and Corruptions
the Doctrine embraced by him consonant to it At least this he may know that the Doctrine which he hath chosen to him seems true and the contrary which he hath forsaken seems false And therefore without remorse of Conscience he may profess that but this he cannot 64. Obj. But we are to remember that according to Doctor Potter the Visible Church hath a blessing not to Err in Fundamentals in which any private Reformer may fail therefore there was no necessity of forsaking the Church out of whose Communion they were exposed to danger of falling into many more and even into damnable Errors Answ The Visible Church is free indeed from all Errors absolutely destructive and unpardonable but not from all Error which in it self is damnable not from all which will actually bring damnation upon them that keep themselves in them by their own voluntary and avoidable fault Besides any private man who truly believes the Scripture and seriously endeavours to know the will of God and to do it is as secure as the Visible Church more secure than your Church from the danger of Erring in Fundamentals for it is impossible that any man so quallified should fall into any Error which to him will prove damnable For God requires no more of any man to his Salvation but his true endeavour to be saved Lastly abiding in your Churches Communion is so far from securing me or any man from damnable Error that if I should abide in it I am certain I could not be saved For abide in it I cannot without professing to believe your entire Doctrine true profess this I cannot but I must lie perpetually and exulcerate my Conscience And though your Errors were not in themselves damnable yet to resist the known Truth and to continue in the profession of known Errors were not in themselves damnable yet to resist the known Truth and to continue in the profession of known Errors and falshoods is certainly a capital sin and of great affinity with the sin which shall never be forgiven 65. Obj. But neither is the Protestant Church free from corruptions ond Errors And what man of Judgment will be a Protestant since that Church is confessedly a corrupted one Answ And yet you your self make large discourses in this very Chapter to perswade Protestants to continue in the Church of Rome though supposed to have some corruptions And why I pray may not a man of judgment continue in the Communion of a Church confessedly corrupted as well as in a Church supposed to be corrupted Especially when this Church supposed to be corrupted requires the belief and profession of her supposed corruptions as the condition of her Communion which this Church confessedly corrupted doth not What man of judgment will think it any disparagement to his judgment to prefer the better though not simply the best before that which is stark naught To prefer indifferrent good health before a diseased and corrupted state of Body To prefer a field not perfectly weeded before a field that is quite over-run with Weeds and Thorns and therefore though Protestants have some Errors yet seeing they are neither so great as yours nor imposed with such Tyranny nor maintained with such obstinacy he that conceives it any disparagement to his judgment to change your Communion for theirs though confessed to have some corruptions it may well be presumed that he hath but little judgment 66. Ad § 22. Obj. But Protestants say it is comfort enough for the Church to be secured from all capital dangers which can only arise from Error in Fundamental points and not hope to Triumph over all sin and Error till she be in Heaven why therefore were not the first Reformers content with enough but would dismember the Church out of greediness of more than enough Answ I have already shewed sufficiently how capital danger may arise from Errors though not Fundamental I add now that what may be enough for men in ignorance may be to knowing men not enough according to that of the Gospel to whom much is given of him much shall be required That the same Error may be not capital to those who want means of finding the truth and capital to others who have means and neglect to use them That to continue in the profession of Error discovered to be so may be damnable though the Error be not so These I presume are reasons enough and enough why the first Reformers might think and justly that not enough for themselves which yet to some of their Predecessors they hope might be enough This very Argument was objected to a S. Cyprian Ep. 63. In these words Siquis de antecessoribus nostris vel igneranter vel simplÃciter non hoc observavit tenuit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo Magisterio suo docuit potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi nobis verò non potest ignosci qui nunc à Domino admoniti instructi sumus S. Cyprian upon another occasion and also by the b Wilfridus to Abbat Colman alledging that he followed the example of his predecessors famous for Holiness and famous for Miracles in these Words De Patre Vestro Columba sequacibus ejus quorum santitatem vos imitari regulam ac praecepta coelestibus signis confirmata sequi perhibetis possum respondere Quia multis in judicio dicentibus Domino Quòd in nomine ejus prophetaverint daemonia ejecerint virtutes multas fecerint responsurus sit Dominus quia nunquam eos noverit Sed absit ut de patribus vestris hoc dicam quia justius multo est de incognitis bonum credere quam malum Vnde illos Dei famulos Deo dilectos esse non nego qui simplicitate ructicâ sed intentione piâ Deum dilexerunt Neque illis multum obesse Paschae talem reor observantiam quandiu nullus advenerat qui eis instituti perfectioris decreta quae sequerentur ostenderet Quos utique credo si qui tunc ad eos Catholicus calculator adveniret sic ejus monita fuisse secuturos quomodo ea quae noverant ac didicerunt Dei mandata probantur fuisse secuti Tu autem socii tui si audita decreta sedis Apostolicae imo universalis Ecclesiae haec literis sacris confirmata contemnitis absque ulla dubietate peccatis Brittish Quartodecimans to the maintainers of the Doctrine of your Church and c Beda lib. 3. Eccl. Hist c. 25. by both this very answer was returned and therefore I cannot but hope that for their sakes you will approve it 67. Obj. But if no Church may hope to Triumph over Error till she be in Heaven then we must either grant that Errors not Fundamental cannot yield sufficient cause to forsake the Church or affirm that all communities may and ought to be forsaken Answ We do not say that no Church may hope to be free from all Error either pernitious
or any way noxious But that no Church may hope to be secure from all Error simply for this were indeed truly to triumph over all But then we say not that the Communion of any Church is to be forsaken for Errors unfundamental unless it exact with all either a dissimulation of them being noxious or a Profession of them against the dictate of Conscience if they be meer Errors This if the Church does as certainly yours doth then her Communion is to be forsaken rather than the sin of Hypocrisie to be committed Whereas to forsake the Churches of Protestants for such Errors there is no necessity because they Err to themselves and do not under pain of Excommunication exact the profession of their Errors 68. Obj. But the Church may not be left by reason of sin therefore neither by reason of Errors not Fundamental in as much as both sin and Error are impossible to be avoided till she be in Heaven Answ The reason of the consequence does not appear to me But I answer to the Antecedent Neither for sin or Errors ought a Church to be forsaken if she does not impose and joyn them but if she do as the Roman does then we must forsake men rather than God leave the Churches Communion rather than commit sin or profess known Errors to be Divine truths For the Prophet Ezekiel hath assured us that to say the Lord hath said so when the Lord hath not said so is a great sin and a high presumption be the matter never so small 69. Ad § 23. Obj. But neither the Quality nor the number of your Churches Errors could warrant our forsaking of it Not the Quality because we suppose them not Fundamental Not the number because the Foundation is strong enough to support them Answ Here again you vainly suppose that we conceive your Errors in themselves not damnable Though we hope they are not absolutely unpardonable but to say they are pardonable is indeed to suppose them damnable Secondly though the Errors of your Church did not warrant our departure yet your Tyrannous imposition of them would be our sufficient justification For this lays necessity on us either to forsake your company or to profess what we know to be false 70. Obj. 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 then how dare we alledge his command that we must not pardon his Church for Errors acknowledged to be not Fundamental Answ He that commands us to pardon our Brother sinning against us so often will not allow us for his sake to sin with him so much as once He will have us do any thing but sin rather than offend any man But his will is also that we offend all the World rather than sin in the least matter And therefore though his will were and it were in our power which yet is false to pardon the Errors of an Erring Church yet certainly it is not his will that we should Err with the Church or if we do not that we should against Conscience profess the Errors of it 71. Ad § 24. Obj. But Schismaticks from the Church of England or any other Church with this very Answer that they forsake not the Church but the Errors of it may cast off from themselves the imputation of Schism Answ 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 Schismaticks They may object Errors 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 S. Peter and S. 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 Cloke 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 used by Traitors and Rebels Certainly therefore it is no good consequence to say Schismaticks may make use of this Answer therefore all that do make use of it are Schismaticks But moreover it is to be observed that the cheif part of our defence that you deny your Communion to all that deny or doubt of any part of your Doctrine cannot with any colour be imployed against Protestants who grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered 72. Obj. But the forsaking the Roman Church opens a way to innumerable Sects and Schisms and therefore it must not be forsaken Answ We must not do evil to avoid evil neither are all courses presently lawful by which inconveniencies 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 Errors As it is better for men to go to Heaven by diverse 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 Peace is dear to me but Truth is dearer 74. Ad § 26.27 Here you make D. Potter to say that Protestants did well to forsake the Church of Rome because they judged she retained all means necessary to Salvation Answ Who was ever so stupid as to give this ridiculous reason D. Potter Vindicates Protestants for Schism two ways The one is because they had just and great and necessary cause to separate which Schismaticks never have because they that have it are no Schismaticks 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 Schismaticks 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 Schismaticks You make him say most absurdly we did well to forsake you because we judged you a member of the Body of Christ
it not as well as yours and whether some mens persuasion that there is no such thing can hinder them from having it or prove that they have it not if there be any such thing Any more than a mans persuasion that he has not taken Physick or Poyson will make him not to have taken it if he has or hinder the operation of it And whether Tertullian in the place quoted by you speak of a Priest made a Lay-man by a just deposition or degradation and not by a voluntary desertion of his Order And whether in the same place he set not some mark upon Hereticks that will agree to your Church Whether all the Authority of our Bishops in England before the Reformation was conferred on them by the Pope And if it were whether it were the Popes right or an Usurpation If it were his right whether by Divine Law or Ecclesiastical And if by Ecclesiastical only whether he might possibly so abuse his power as to deserve to lose it Whether de facto he had done so Whether supposing he had deserved to lose it those that deprived him of it had power to take it from him Or if not whether they had power to suspend him from the use of it until good caution were put in and good assurance given that if he had it again he would not abuse it as he had formerly done Whether in case they had done unlawfully that took his power from him it may not things being now setled and the present Government established be as unlawful to go about to restore it whether it be not a Fallacy to conclude because we believe the Pope hath no power in England now when the King and State and Church hath deprived him upon just grounds of it therefore we cannot believe that he had any before his deprivation Whether without Schism a man may not withdraw obedience from an Usurped Authority commanding unlawful things Whether the Roman Church might not give Authority to Bishops and Priests to oppose her Errors as well as a King gives Authority to a Judge to judge against him if his cause be bad as well as Trajan gave his Sword to his Prefect with this commission that if he Governed well he should use it for him if ill against Whether the Roman Church gave not Authority to her Bishops and Priests to Preach against her corruptions in manners And if so why not against her Errors in Doctrine if she had any Whether she gave them not Authority to Preach the whole Gospel of Christ and consequently against her Doctrine if it should contradict any part of the Gospel of Christ Whether it be not acknowledged lawful in the Church of Rome for any Lay-man or Woman that has ability to persuade others by Word or by Writing from Error and unto truth And why this Liberty may not be practised against their Religion if it be false as well as for it if it be true Whether any man need any other Commission or Vocation than that of a Christian to do a work of Charity And whether it be not one of the greatest works of Charity if it be done after a peaceable manner and without any unnecessary disturbance of order to persuade men out of a false unto a true way of Eternal happiness Especially the Apostle having assured us that he whosoever he is who converteth a sinner from the Error of his way shall save a Soul from Death and shall hide a multitude of Sins Whether the first Reformed Bishops died all at once so that there were not enough to ordain others in the places that were vacant Whether the Bishops of England may not Consecrate a Metropolitan of England as well as the Cardinals do the Pope whether the King or Queen of England or they that have the Government in their Hands in the minority of the Prince may not lawfully commend one to them to be consecrated against whom there is no Canonical exception Whether the Doctrine that the King is supream head of the Church of England as the Kings of Judah and the first Christian Emperors were of the Jewish and Christian Church be any new found Doctrine Whether it be not true that Bishops being made Bishops have their Authority immediately from Christ though this or that man be not made Bishop without the Kings Authority as well as you say the Pope being Pope has Authority immediately from Christ and yet this or that man cannot be made Pope without the Authority of the Cardinals Whether you do well to suppose that Christian Kings have no more Authority in ordering the affairs of the Church than the great Turk or the Pagan Emperors Whether the King may not give Authority to a Bishop to exercise his function in some part of his Kingdom and yet not be capable of doing it himself as well as a Bishop may give Authority to a Physician to practice Physick in his Diocess which the Bishop cannot do himself Whether if Nero the Emperor would have commanded S. Peter or S. Paul to Preach the Gospel of Christ and to exercise the office of a Bishop of Rome whether they would have questioned his Authority to do so Whether there were any Law of God or man that prohibited K. JAMES to give Commission to Bishops nay to lay his injunction upon them to do any thing that is lawful Whether a casual irregularity may not be lawfully dispenced with Whether the Popes irregularities if he should chance to incur any be indispensable And if not who is he or who are they whom the Pope is so subject unto that they may dispense with him Whether that be certain which you take for granted That your Ordination imprints a Character and ours doth not Whether the power of Consecrating and Ordaining by imposition of hands may not reside in the Bishops and be derived unto them not from the King but God and yet the King have Authority to command them to apply this power to such a fit person whom he shall commend unto them As well as if some Architects only had the faculty of Architecture and had it immediately by infusion from God himself yet if they were the Kings Subjects he wants not authority to command them to build him a Palace for his use or a fortress for his service Or as the King of France pretends not to have power to make Priests himself yet I hope you will not deny him power to command any of his Subjects that has this power to ordain any fit person Priest whom he shall desire to be ordained Whether it do not follow that whensoever the King commands an House to be Built a Message to be delivered or a Murtherer to be Executed that all these things are presently done without intervention of the Architect Messenger or Executioner As well as that they are ipso facto Ordained and Consecrated who by the Kings Authority are commended to the Bishops to be Ordained and Consecrated Especially seeing the King
Erring persons that lead good lives should be judged of charitably c. 7.33 A man may learn of the Church to confute its Errors c. 3.40 We did well to forsake the Roman Church for her Errors though we afterwards may err out of it c. 5.63 64 65 67 87 92. We must not adhere to a Church in professing the least Errors lest we should not profess with her necessary Doctrin c. 3.56 The Examples of those that forsaking Popish Errors have denied necessary Truths no Argument against Protestants c. 3.63 External Communion of a Church may be left without leaving a Church c. 5.32 45 47. F. Whether Faith be destroyed by denying a Truth testified by God Ans Pref. 25. c. 6.49 c. 7.19 The Objects of Faith of two sorts essential and occasional c. 4.3 Certainty of Faith less than the highest degree may please God and save a man c. 1.8 6.3 4 5. Faith less than infallibly certain may resist temptations difficulties c. 6.5 There may be Faith where the Church and its infallibility begets it not c. 2.49 Faith does not go before Scripture but follows its efficacy c. 2.48 Protestants have sufficient means to know the certainty of their Faith c. 2.152 In the Roman Church the last resolution of Faith is into Motives of Credibility c. 2.154 The Fathers declared their Judgment of Articles but did not require their declarations to be received under Anathema c. 4.18 Protestants did not forsake the Church though they forksook its errors c. 3.11 Sufficient Foundation for faith without infallible certainty c. 6.6 45. What Protestants mean by Fundamental Doctrins c. 4.52 In what sense the Church of Rome errs not Fundamentally Ans Pref. 20. To be unerring in Fundamentals can be said of no Church of one denomination c. 3.55 To say that there shall be always a Church not erring in Fundamentals is to say that there shall be always a Church c. 3.55 A Church is not safe though retaining Fundamentals when it builds hay and stubble on the foundation and neglects to reform her Errors c. 5.61 Ignorance of what points in particular are fundamental does not make it uncertain whether we do not err fundamentally or differ in fundamentals among our selves c. 7.14 G. The four Gospels contain all necessary Doctrins c. 4.40 41 42 43. An Infallible Guide not necessary for avoiding Heresie c. 2.127 The Apostolick Church an Infallible Guide to which we may resort c. 3.69 The Church may not be an Infallible Guide in fundamentals though it be infallible in fundamentals c. 3.39 That the Roman Church should be the only infallible Guide of Faith and the Scriptures say nothing concerning it is incredible c. 6.20 H. The difference betwixt Heresie and Schism c. 5.51 There are no New Heresies no more than new Articles of Faith c. 4.18 37 38. Separation from the Church of Rome no mark of Heresie by the Fathers whose Citations are answered c. 6.22 23 24 25 26 27 2â— 30 31 33 34. No mark of Heresie to want succession of Bishops holding the same Doctrin c. 6.18 41. We are not Hereticks for opposing things propounded by the Church of Rome for divine Truth c. 6.11 12. Whether Protestants Schismatically cut off the Roman Church from hopes of salvation c. 5.38 I. The Jewish Church had no Infallibility annexed to it and if it had there is no necessity that the Christian Church should have it c. 2.141 The Imposing a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a just cause of separating from a Church c. 5.31 36 40 50 59 60 68 69. Indifferency to all Religions falsely charged upon Protestants Ans Pref. 3. c. 3.12 The belief of the Churches Infallibility makes way for Heresie Pref. 10. An Infallible Guide not needful for avoiding Heresies c. 2.127 The Churches Infallibility has not the same Evidence as there is for the Scriptures c. 3.30 31. The Churches Infallibility can no way be better assured to us than the Scriptures incorruption c. 2.25 c. 3.27 The Churches Infallibility is not proved from the promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it c. 3.70 Nor from the promise of the Spirits leading into all Truth which was made onely to the Apostles c. 3.71 72. The Churches infallibility not proved from Ephes c. 11 12 13. He gave some Apostles c. till we all come in the Vnity of the Faith c. c. 3.79 80. That God has appointed an Infallible Judge of Controversies because such a one is desirable and useful is a weak conclusion c. 2. from 128. to 136. inclusive Infallibility in fundamentals no warrant to adhere to a Church in all that she proposes c. 3.57 Infallible interpretations of Scripture vainly boasted of by the Roman Church c. 2.93 94 95. Whether the denial of the Churches Infallibility leaves men to their private spirit reason and discourse and what is the harm of it Pref. 12.13 c. 2.110 Traditional Interpretations of Scripture how ill preserved c. 2.10 Interprecations of Scripture which private men make for themselves not pretending to prescribe their sense to others though false or seditious endanger only themselves c. 2.122 Allow the Pope or Roman Church to be a decisive Interpreter of Christs Laws and she can evacuate them and make what Laws she pleases Pref. 10.11 c. 2.1 S. Irenaeus's account of Tradition favours not Popery c. 2.144 145 146. His saying that no Reformation can countervail the danger of a Schism explained c. 5.11 A living Judge to end Controversies about the sense of Scripture not necessary c. 2.12 13. If Christ had intended such a Judge in Religion he would have named him which he has not done c. 2.23 c. 3.69 c. 6.20 Though a living Judge be necessary to determin Civil causes yet not necessary for Religious causes c. 2. from 14. to 22. inclus If there be a Judge of Controversies no necessity it should be the Roman Church c. 3.69 Roman Catholicks set up as many Judges in Religion as Protestants c. 2.116 118 153. A Judgment of discretion must be allowed to every man for himself about Religion c. 2.11 The Protestant Doctrin of Justification taken altogether not a licentious doctrin c. 7.30 When they say they are justified by faith alone yet they make good works necessary to salvation c. 7.30 K. Our obligation to know any divine truth arises from Gods manifest revealing it c. 3.19 L. How we are assured in what Language the Scripture is uncorrupted c. 2.55 56 57. To leave a Church and to leave the external Communion of a Church is not the same thing c. 5.32 45 47. Luthers separation not like that of the Donatists and why c. 5.33.101 Luther and his followers did not divide from the whole Church being a part of it but onely reformed themselves forsaking the corrupt part c. 5.56 Luthers opposing himself to all in his reformation no objection against him c. 5.89 90. We are not bound to justifie all that Luther said
shall see what will come of it Assure your self you have a Wolf by the Ears If you say they were you overthrow your own conclusions and say that Churches divided in Communion may both be members of the Catholick If they were not then shall we have Saints and Martyrs in Heaven which were no members of the Catholick Roman Church As for Irenaeus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ruffinus his Abscindere ab unitate corporis they imply no more but this at the most That Victor quantum in se fuit did cut them off from the External Communion of the Catholick Church supposing that for their Obstinacy in their Tradition they had cut themselves off from the internal Communion of it but that this sentence of Victors was ratified in Heaven and that they were indeed cut off from the mystical Body of Christ so far was Irenaeus from thinking that he and in a manner all the other Bishops reprehended Victor for pronouncing this Sentence on them upon a cause so insufficient which how they could say or possibly think of a Sentence ratified by God in Heaven and not reprehend God himself I desire you to inform me and if they did not intend to reprehend the Sentence of God himself together with Victors then I believe it will follow unavoidably that they did not conceive nor believe Victors Sentence to be ratified by God and consequently did not believe that these excommunicated Churches were not in Gods account true members of the Body of Christ Ad § 4. And here again we have another subterfuge by a Verbal distinction between Excommunication and voluntary separation As if the separation which the Church of Rome made in Victors time from the Asian Churches were not a voluntary separation or as if the Churches of Asia did not voluntarily do that which was the cause of their separation or as if though they sepated not themselves indeed conceiving the cause to be insufficient they did not yet remain voluntarily separated rather than conform themselves to the Church of Rome Or lastly as if the Grecians of Old or the Protestants of Late might not pretend as justly as the Asian Churches that their Separation too was not voluntarily but of necessity for that the Church of Rome required of them under pain of Excommunication such conditions of her Communion as were neither necessary nor lawful to be performed Ad § 5. And here again the matter is streightned by another limitation Both sides say you must claim to be the Church but what then if one of them only claim though vainly to be the Church and the other content it self with being a part of it These then it seems for any thing you have said to the contrary may be both members of the Catholick Church And certainly this is the case now between the Church of England and the Church of Rome and for ought I know was between the Church of Rome and the Church of Greece For I believe it will hardly be proved that the Excommunication between them was mutual nor that the Church of Greece esteems it self the whole Church and the Church of Rome no Church but it self a sound member of the Church and that a corrupted one Again whereas you say the Fathers speak of a voluntary separation certainly they speak of any Separation by Hereticks and such were in Victors judgment the Churches of Asia for holding an opinion contrary to the Faith as he esteemed Or if he did not why did he cut them from the Communion of the Church But the true difference is The Fathers speak of those which by your Church are esteemed Hereticks and are so whereas the Asian Churches were by Victor esteemed Hereticks but were not so Ad § 6. But their Authorities produced shew no more than what I have shewed that the Church is â—ut one in exclusion of Hereticks and Schismaticks and not that two particular Churches divided by mistake upon some overvalued difference may not be both parts of the Catholick Ad § 7. But I desire you to tell me whether you will do this if the Doctrines produced and confirmed by such a consent of Fathers happen to be in the judgment of the Church of Rome either not Catholick or absolutely Heretical If you will undertake this you shall hear farther from me But if when their places are produced you will pretend as some of your side do that surely they are corrupted having neither reason nor shew of reason for it unless this may pass for one as perhaps it may where reasons are scarce that they are against your Doctrine or if you will say they are to be interpreted according to the pleasure of your Church whether their words will bear it or no then I shall but lose my Labour for this is not to try your Church by the Fathers but the Fathers by your Church The Doctrines which I undertake to justifie by a greater consent of Fathers than here you produce for instance shall be these 1. That Gods Election supposeth prescience of mans Faith and perseverance 2. That God doth not predetermine men to all their Actions 3. That the Pope hath no power in temporalties over Kings either directly or indirectly 4. That the Bishop of Rome may Err in his publick determinations of matters of Faith 5. That the B. Virgin was guilty of Original sin 6. That the B. Virgin was guilty of actual sin 7. That the Communion was to be administred to the Laity in both kinds 8. That the reading of the Scripture was to be denied to no man 9. That the Opinion of the Millenaries is true 10. That the Eucharist is to be administred to Infants 11. That the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the Euchâ—â—â—st of her Consecration 12. That the Souls of the Saints departed enjoy not the Vision of God before the Last day 13. That at the day of judgment all the Saints shall past through a purging fire All these propositions are held by your Church either Heretical or at least not Catholical and yet in this promise of yours you have undertaken to believe them as firmly as you now do this That two divided Societies cannot be both members of the Catholick Church Ad § 8. Is it not then the Answerers part to shew that the proofs pretended are indeed no proofs and doth not he prove no proofs at least in your mouth who undertakes to shew that an equal or greater number of the very same witnesses is rejected by your selves in many other things Either the consent of the Fathers in any Age or Ages is infallible and then you are to reject it in nothing or it is not so and then you are not to urge it in any thing As if the Fathers Testimonies against us were Swords and Spears and against you bulrushes Ad § 9. In effect as if you should say If you answer not as I please I will dispute no longer But you remember the proverb will think
and most Royal Charity Besides it is in a manner nothing else but a pursuance of and a superstruction upon that blessed Doctrin wherewith I have adorn'd and arm'd the Frontispiece of my Book which was so earnestly recommended by your Royal Father of happy memory to all the lovers of Truth and Peace that is to all that were like himself as the only hopeful means of healing the breaches of Christendom whereof the Enemy of souls makes such pestilent advantage The lustre of this blessed Doctrin I have here endeavoured to uncloud and unveil and to free it from those mists and fumes which have been rais'd to obscure it by that Order which envenoms even poison it self and makes the Roman Religion much more malignant and turbulent than otherwise it would be whose very Rule and Doctrin obliges them to make all men as much as lies in them subjects unto Kings and servants unto Christ no farther than it shall please the Pope So that whether Your Majesty be considered either as a pious Son towards your Royal Father K. James or as a tender hearted and compassionate Son towards your distressed Mother the Catholick Church or as a King of your Subjects or as a Servant unto Christ this work to which I can give no other commendation but that it was intended to do you service in all these capacities may pretend not unreasonably to your Gracious acceptance Lastly being a Defence of that whole Church and Religion you profess it could not be so proper to any Patron as to the great Defender of it which stile Your Majesty hath ever so exactly made good both in securing it from all dangers and in vindicating it by the well ordering and rectifying this Church from all the foul aspersions both of Domestick and Forein enemies of which they can have no ground but their own malice and want of Charity But it 's an argument of a despairing and lost cause to support it self with these impetuous outcries and clamors the faint refuges of those that want better arguments like that Stoick in Lucian that cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O damn'd villain when he could say nothing else Neither is it credible the wiser sort of them should believe this their own horrid assertion That a God of goodness should damn to eternal torments those that love him and love truth for errors which they fall into through humane frailty But this they must say otherwise their only great argument from their damning us and our not being so peremptory in damning them because we hope unaffected Ignorance may excuse them would be lost and therefore they are engaged to act on this Tragical part only to fright the simple and ignorant as we do little children by telling them that bites which we would not have them meddle with And truly that herein they do but act a part and know themselves to do so and deal with us here as they do with the King of Spain at Rome whom they accurse and Eccommunicate for fashion sake on Maundy-Thursday for detaining part of S. Peters Patrimony and absolve him without satisfaction on Good-Friday methinks their faltring and inconstancy herein makes it very apparent For though for the most part they speak nothing but thunder and lightning to us and damn us all without mercy or exception yet sometimes to serve other purposes they can be content to speak to us in a milder strain and tell us as my adversary does more than once That they allow Protestants as much Charity as Protestants allow them Neither is this the only contradiction which I have discovered in this uncharitable Work but have shewed that by forgetting himself and retracting most of the principal grounds he builds upon he hath saved me the labour of a confutation which yet I have not in any place found any such labour or difficulty but that it was undertakeable by a man of very mean that is of my abilities And the reason is because it is Truth I plead for which is so strong an argument for it self that it needs only light to discover it whereas it concerns Falshood and Error to use disguises and shadowings and all the fetches of Art and Sophistry and therefore it stands in need of abler men to give that a colour at least which hath no real body to subsist by If my endeavors in this kind may contribute any thing to this discovery and the making plain that Truth which my Charity perswades me the most part of them disaffect only because it has not been well represented to them I have the fruit of my labour and my wish who desire to live to no other end than to do service to Gods Church and Your most Sacred Majesty in the quality of Your Majesties most faithful Subject and most humble and devoted Servant WILLIAM CHILLINGWORTH THE PREFACE TO THE AUTHOR OF Charity Maintained With an Answer to his Direction to N. N. SIR UPON the first news of the publication of your Book I used all diligence with speed to procure it and came with such a mind to the reading of it as S. Austin before he was a setled Catholick brought to his conference with Faustus the Manichee For as he thought that if any thing more then ordinary might be said in defence of the Manichean Doctrine Faustus was the man from whom it was to be expected So my persuasion concerning you was Si Pergama dextrâ defendi possunt certè hac defensa videbo If Troy by any Power could stand 'T would be defended by your hand 1. For I conceived that among the Champions of the Roman Church the English in Reason must be the best or equal to the best as being by most expert Masters trained up purposely for this war and perpetually practised in it Among the English I saw the Jesuits would yield the first place to none and Men so wise in their generation as the Jesuits were if they had any Achilles among them I presumed would make choice of him for this service And besides I had good assurance that in the framing of this building though you were the only Architect yet you wanted not the assistance of many diligent hands to bring you in choice materials towards it nor of many careful and watchful eyes to correct the errors of your work if any should chance to escape you Great reason therefore had I to expect great matters from you and that your Book should have in it the Spirit and Elixir of all that can be said in defence of your Church and Doctrin and to assure my self that if my resolution not to believe it were not built upon the rock of evident grounds and reasons but only upon some sandy and deceitful appearances now the Wind and Storm and Floods were coming which would undoubtedly overthrow it 2. Neither truly were you more willing to effect such an alteration in me than I was to have it effected For my desire is to go the right way to Eternal
if it could be justified But besides that it is confuted by my whole Book and made ridiculous by the Approbations premised unto it it is very easie for me out of your own Mouth and Words to prove it a most injurious calumny For what one Conclusion is there in the whole Fabrick of my Discourse that is not naturally deducible out of this one Principle That all things necessary to Salvation are evidently contained in Scripture Or what one Conclusion almost of importance is there in your Book which is not by this one clearly confutable Grant this and it will presently follow in opposition to your first Conclusion and the argument of your first Ch that amongst men of different opinions touching the obscure and controverted Questions of Religion such as may with probability be disputed on both Sides and such as are the disputes of Protestants Good men and lovers of truth of all Sides may be saved because all necessary things being supposed evident concerning them with men so qualified there will be no difference There being no more certain sign that a Point is not evident than that honest and understanding and indifferent men and such as give themselves liberty of judgment after a mature consideration of the matter differ about it 31. Grant this and it will appear Secondly that the means whereby the revealed Truths of God are conveyed to our understanding and which are to determine all Controversies in Faith necessary to be determined may be for any thing you have said to the contrary not a Church but the Scripture which contradicts the Doctrine of your Second Chapter 32. Grant this and the distinction of points Fundamental and not Fundamental will appear very good and pertinent For those truths will be Fundamental which are evidently delivered in Scripture and commanded to be Preached to all men Those not Fundamental which are obscure And nothing will hinder but that the Catholick Church may Err in the latter kind of the said points because Truths not necessary to the Salvation cannot be necessary to the being of a Church and because it is not absolutely necessary that God should assist his Church any farther than to bring Her to Salvation neither will there be any necessity at all of any Infallible Guide either to consign unwritten Traditions or to declare the obscurities of the Faith Not for the former end be cause this Principle being granted true nothing unwritten can be necessary to be consigned Nor for the latter because nothing that is obscure can be necessary to be understood or not mistaken And so the discourse of your whole Third Chap will presently vanish 33. Fourthly for the Creed's containing the Fundamentals of simple belief though I see not how it may be deduced from this principle yet the granting of this plainly renders the whole dispute touching the Creed necessary For if all necessary things of all sorts whether of simple belief or practice be confessed to be clearly contained in Scripture what imports it whether those of one sort be contained in the Creed 34. Fifthly let this be granted and the immediate Corollary in opposition to your Fifth Chap. will be and must be That not Protestants for rejecting but the Church of Rome for imposing upon the Faith of Christians Doctrines unwritten and unnecessary and for disturbing the Churches Peace and dividing Unity for such matters is in a high degree presumptuous and Schismatical 35. Grant this sixthly and it will follow unavoidably that Protestants cannot possibly be Hereticks seeing they believe all things evidently contained in Scripture which are supposed to be all that is necessary to be believed and so your Sixth Chapter is clearly confuted 36. Grant this Lastly and it will be undoubtedly consequent in contradiction of your Seventh Chapter that no Man can shew more Charity to himself than by continuing a Protestant seeing Protestants are supposed to believe and therefore may accordingly practice at least by their Religion are not hindered from practising and performing all things necessary to Salvation 37. So that the position of this one Principle is the direct overthrow of your whole Book and therefore I needed not nor indeed have I made use of any other Now this principle which is not only the Corner-stone or chief Pillar but even the base and adequate Foundation of my Answer and which while it stands firm and unmovable cannot but be the supporter of my Book and the certain ruin of yours is so far from being according to your pretence detested by all Protestants that all Protestants whatsoever as you may see in their Harmony of Confessions unanimously profess and maintain it And you your self C. 6. § 30. plainly confess as much in saying The whole Edifice of the Faith of Protestants is setled on these two Principles These particular Books are Canonical Scripture And the sense and meaning of them is plain and evident at least in all points necessary to Salvation 38. And thus your Venom against me is in a manner spent saving only that there remain two little impertinences whereby you would disable me from being a fit advocate for the cause of Protestants The first because I refuse to subscribe the Artic. of the Ch. of England The second because I have set down in writing motives which sometime induced me to forsake Protestantism and hitherto have not answered them 39. By the former of which objections it should seem that either you conceive the 39 Articles the common Doctrine of all Protestants and if they be why have you so often upbraided them with-their many and great differences Or else that it is the peculiar defence of the Church of England and not the common cause of all Protestants which is here undertaken by me which are certainly very gross mistakes And yet why he who makes scruple of subscribing the truth of one or two Propositions may not yet be fit enough to maintain that those who do subscribe them are in a saveable condition I do not understand Now though I hold not the Doctrine of all Protestants absolutely true which with reason cannot be required of me while they hold contradictions yet I hold it free from all impiety and from all Error destructive of Salvation or in it self damnable And this I think in reason may sufficiently qualifie me for a maintainer of this assertion that Protestancy destroys not Salvation For the Church of England I am persuaded that the constant Doctrine of it is so pure and Orthodox that whosoever believes it and lives according to it undoubtedly he shall be saved and that there is no Error in it which may necessitate or warrant any Man to disturb the peace or renounce the Communion of it This in my opinion is all intended by Subscription and thus much if you conceive me not ready to subscribe your Charity I assure you is much mistaken 40. Your other Objection is yet more impertinent and frivolous than the former Unless perhaps it be a just
Christian Lay-man should come into a Country of Infidels and had ability to persuade them to Christianity who would say he might not use it for want of Commission To the Eighth Luthers conference with the Devil might be for ought I know nothing but a Melancholy Dream If it were real the Devil might persuade Luther from the Mass hoping by doing so to keep him constant to it Or that others would make his dissuasion from it an argument for it as we see Papists do and be afraid of following Luther as confessing himself to have been persuaded by the Devil To the Ninth Illiacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault than Protestants Even this very Author in this very Pamphlet hath not so many leaves as falsifications and Calumnies To the Tenth Let all Men believe the Scripture and that only and endeavour to believe it in the true sense and require no more of others and they shall find this not only a better but the only means to suppress Heresie and restore Unity For he that believes the Scripture sincerely and endeavours to believe it in the true sense cannot possibly be an Heretick And if no more than this were required of any Man to make him capable of the Churches Communion then all Men so qualified though they were different in opinion yet notwithstanding any such difference must be of necessity one in Communion THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE TO the First and Second § If beginnings be ominous as they say they are D. Potter hath cause to look for great store of uningenuous dealing from you the very first words you speak of him viz. That he hath not so much as once truly and really fallen upon the point in question being a most unjust and immodest imputation 2. For the point in question was not that which you pretend Whether both Papists and Protestants can be saved in their several Professions But whether you may without uncharitableness affirm that Protestancy unrepented destroys Salvation For there is no incongruity but that it may be true That you and we connot both be Saved and yet as Ttrue That without uncharitableness you cannot pronounce us Damned And therefore though the Author of Charity Mistaken had proved as strongly as he hath done weakly that one Heaven could not receive Protestants and Papists both yet certainly it was very hastily and unwarrantably and therefore uncharitably concluded that Protestants were the part that was to be excluded As though Jews and Christians cannot both be saved yet a Jew cannot justly and therefore not charitably pronounce a Christian Damned 3. Neither may you or C. M. conclude him from hence as covertly you do an Enemy to Souls by deceiving them with ungrounded false hopes of Salvation seeing the hope of Salvation cannot be ungrounded which requires and supposes belief and practise of all things absolutely necessary to Salvation and repentance of those Sins and Errors which we fall into by humane frailty Nor a friend to indifferency in Religions seeing he gives them only hope of pardon of Errors who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities industrious to find the truth or at least truly repentant that they have not been so Which Doctrine is very fit to excite men to a constant and impartial search of truth and very far from teaching them that it is indifferent what Religion they are of and without all controversie very honourable to the goodness of God with which how it can consist not to be satisfied with his Servants true endeavours to know his will and do it without full and exact performance I leave it to you and all good men to judge 5. You say he was loth to affirm plainly that generally both Catholicks and Protestants may be saved which yet is manifest he doth affirm plainly of Protestants throughout his Book and of Erring Papists that have sincerely sought the truth and failed of it and Die with a generalrepentance p. 77.78 And yet you deceive your self if you conveive he had any other necessity to do so but only that he thought it true For we may and do pretend that before Luther there were many true Churches besides the Roman which agreed not with her in particular The Greek Church So that what you say is evidently true is indeed evidently false Besides if he had had any necessity to make use of you in this matter he needed not for this end to say that now in your Church Salvation may be had but onely that before Luthers time it might be Then when your means of knowing the truth were not so great and when your ignorance might be more invincible and therefore more excusable So that you may see if you please it is not for ends but for the love of truth that we are thus charitable to you 6. Neither is it material what you alledge that they are not Fundamental Errors and then what imports it whether we hold them or no forasmuch as concerns cur possibility to be Saved As if we were not bound by the Love of God and the love of truth to be zealous in the defence of all Truths that are any way profitable though not simply necessary to Salvation Or as if any good man could satisfie his Conscience with being so affected and resolved Our Saviour himself having assured us a That he that shall break one of his least Commandments some whereof you pretend are concerning venial sins and consequently the keeping of them not necessary to Salvation and shall so teach men shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven 7. But then it imports very much though not for the possibility that you may be saved yet for the probability that you will be so because the holding of these Errors though it did not merit migh yet occasion Damnation As the Doctrine of Indulgences may take away the fear of Purgatory and the Doctrine of Purgatory the fear of Hell as you well know it does too frequently So that though a godly man might be saved with these Errors yet by means of them many are made vicious and so damned By them I say though not for them No godly Lay-man who is verily persuaded that there is neither impiety nor superstition in the use of your Latin Service shall be Damned I hope for being present at it yet the want of that Devotion which the frequent hearing the Offices understood might happily beget in them the want of that instruction and edification which it might afford them may very probably hinder the Salvation of many which otherwise might have been saved Besides though the matter of an Error may be only something profitable not necessary yet the neglect of it may be a damnable Sin As not to regard Venial Sins is in the Doctrine of your Schools mortal Lastly as Venial Sins you say dispose men to mortal so the erring from some profitable though lesser truth may dispose a
Predetermination or against it Stephen Bishop of Rome held it as a matter of Faith and Apostolick tradition That Hereticks gave true Baptism Others there were and they as good Catholicks as he that held that this was neither matter of Faith nor matter of Truth Justin Martyr and Irenaeus held the Doctrine of the Millenaries as a matter of Faith and though Justin Martyr deny it yet you I hope will affirm that some good Christians held the contrary S. Augustine I am sure held the communicating of Infants as much Apostolick tradition as the Baptising of them whether the Bishop and the Church of Rome of his time held so too or held otherwise I desire you to determine But sure I am the Church of Rome at this present holds the contrary The same S. Austin held it no matter of Faith that the Bishops of Rome were Judges of Appeals from all parts of the Church Catholick no not in Major Causes and Major Persons whether the Bishop or Church of Rome did then hold the contrary do you resolve me but now I am resolved they do so In all these differences the point in question is esteemed and proposed by one side at least as a matter of Faith and by the other rejected as not so and either this is to disagree in matters of Faith or you will have no means to shew that we do disagree Now then to shew you how weak and sandy the Foundation is on which the whole Fabrick both of your Book and Church depends answer me briefly to this Dilemma Either in these oppositions one of the opposite Parts erred damnably and denied Gods truth sufficiently propounded or they did not If they did than they which do deny Gods truth sufficiently propounded may go to heaven and then you are rash and uncharitable in excluding us though we were guilty of this fault If not then there is no such necessity that of two disagreeing about a matter of Faith one should deny Gods truth sufficiently propounded And so the Major and Minor of your Argument are proved false Yet though they were as true as Gospel and as evident as Mathematical Principles the conclusion so impertinent is it to the Premises might still be false For that which naturally issues from these propositions is not Therefore one only can be saved But Therefore one of them does something that is damnable But with what Logick or what Charity you can infer either as the immediate production of the former premises or as a Corollary from this conclusion Therefore one only can be saved I do not understand unless you will pretend that this consequence is good such a one doth something damnable therefore he shall certainly be damned which whether it be not to overthrow the Article of our Faith which promises remission of sins upon repentance and consequently to ruin the Gospel of Christ I leave it to the Pope and the Cardinals to determine For if against this it be alledged that no man can repent of the sin wherein he Dies This muce I have already stopped by shewing that if it be a sin of Ignorance this is no way incongruous 13. Ad 6. § In your sixth Parag. I let all pass saving only this That a persuasion that men of different Religions you must mean Christians of different Opinions or Communions may be saved is a most pernicious Heresie and even a ground of Atheism What strange extractions Chymistry can make I know not but sure I am he that by reason would infer this Conclusion That there is no God from this ground That God will save men in different Religions must have a higher strain of Logick than you or I have hitherto made shew of In my apprehension the other part of the contradiction That there is a God should much rather follow from it and I say and will maintain that to say That Christians of different Opinions and Communions such I mean who hold all those things that are simply necessary to Salvation may not obtain Pardon for the Errors wherein they Die ignorantly by a general Repentance is so far from being a ground of Atheism that to say the contrary is to cross in Diameter a main Article of our Creed and to overthrow the Gospel of Christ 14. Ad 7. § To what you say of some Protestants that hold it necessary to be able to prove a perpetual Visible Church distinct from Yours I answer Some perhaps undertake to do so as a matter of courtesie but I believe you will be much to seek for any one that holds it necessary For though you say that Christ hath promised there shall be a Perpetual Visible Church yet you your selves do not pretend that he hath promised there shall be Histories and Records always extant of the Professors of it in all Ages nor that he hath any where enjoyned us to read those Histories that we may be able to shew them 17. To your ensuing demands though some of them be very captious and ensnaring yet I will give you as clear and plain and Ingenuous Answers as possibly I can 18. Ad 11. § To the First then about the Perpetuity of the visible Church my Answer is That I believe our Saviour ever since his Ascension hath had in some place or other a Visible true Church on Earth I mean a Company of Men that professed at least so much truth as was absolutely necessary for their Salvation And I believe that there will be somewhere or other such a Church to the Worlds end But the contrary Doctrine I do at no hand believe to be a damnable Heresie 19. Ad 12. § To the Second what Visible Church there was before Luther disagreeing from the Roman I answer that before Luther there were many Visible Churches in many things disagreeing from the Roman But not that the whole Catholick Church disagreed from Her because She her self was a Part of the Whole though much corrupted And to undertake to name a Catholick Church disagreeing from Her is to make her no Part of it which we do not nor need not pretend And for men agreeing with Protestants in all points we will then produce them when you shall either prove it necessary to be done which you know we absolutely deny or when you shall produce a perpetual succession of Professors which in all points have agreed with you and disagreed from you in nothing But this my promise to deal plainly with you I conceive and so intended it to be very like his who undertook to drink up the Sea upon condition that he to whom the promise was made should first stop the Rivers from runing in For this unreasonable request which you make to us is to your selves so impossible that in the very next Age after the Apostles you will never be able to name a Man whom you can prove to have agreed with you in all things nay if you speak of such whose Works are extant and unquestioned whom we cannot prove
all Let not the Weapons of your Warfare be Carnal such as are 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 far 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 clear as the Sun if it any way made against you you might keep them entire without any thought or care to conform your Doctrine to them or reform it by them which were indeed to reverence the Scriptures but out of a persuasion that you could qualifie them well enough with your glosses and interpretations and make them sufficiently conformable to your present Doctrine at least in their judgment who were prepossessed with this persuasion that your Church was to judge of the sense of Scripture not to be judged by it 3. Whereas you say No cause imaginable could avert your will from giving the function of Supream and sole judge to holy Writ but that the thing is impossible and that by this means controversies are encreased and not ended What indifferent and unprejudiced man may not easily conceive another cause which I do not say does but certainly may prevert your Wills and avert your understandings from submitting your Religion and Church to a Tryal 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 judgment unto yours As for the impossibility of Scriptures being the sole Judge of Controversies that is the sole rule for man 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 judgments 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 acknowledge 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 acknowledge it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing can be only we deny it to be as perfect a Rule as a writing may be Either therefore you must revoke your 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 it is apparent Because that is not perfect in any kind which wants some parts belonging to its integrity As he is not a perfect man that wants any part appertaining to the Integrity of a Man and therefore that which wants any accession to make it a perfect rule of its self is not a perfect Rule And then the end of a rule is to regulate and direct Now every instrument is more or less perfect in its kind as it is more or less fit to attain the end for which it is ordained But nothing obscure or unevident while it is so is fit to regulate and direct them to whom it is so Therefore it is requisite also to a rule so far as it is a Rule to be evident otherwise indeed it is no rule because it cannot serve for direction I conclude therefore that both these properties are required to a perfect Rule both to be so compleat as to need no Addition and to be so evident as to need no Interpretation 7. Now that a Writing is capable of both these perfections it is so plain that I am even ashamed to prove it For he that denies it must say That something may be spoken which cannot be written For if such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as you pretend it may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may also be written If you will have more light added to the Sun answer me then to these Questions Whether your Church can set down in writing all these which she pretends to be Divine unwritten Traditions and add them to the verities already written
damn him for Error that desires and indeavours to find the Truth 15. Ad § 2. The effect of this Paragraph for as much as concerns us is this that for any man to deny belief to any one thing be it great or small known by him to be revealed by Almighty God for a truth is in effect to charge God with falshood for it is to say that God affirms that to be Truth which he either knows to be not a Truth or which he doth not know to be a Truth and therefore without all Controversie this is a damnable sin To this I subscribe with Hand and Heart adding withal that not only he which knows but he which believes nay though it be erroneously any thing to be revealed by God and yet will not believe it nor assent unto it is in the same case and commits the same sin of derogation from Gods most perfect and pure Veracity 16. Ad § 3. I said purposely known by himself and believes himself For as without any disparagement of a mans Honesty I may believe something to be false which he affirms of his certain knowledge to be true provided I neither know nor believe that he has so affirmed So without any the least dishonour to Gods Eternal never failing Veracity I may doubt of or deny some truth revealed by him if I neither know nor believe it to be revealed by him 19. But ignorance of what we are expresly bound to know is it self a fault and therefore cannot be an excuse and therefore if you could shew the Protestants differ in those points the truth whereof which can be but one they were bound expresly to know I should easily yield that one side must of necessity be in a mortal Crime But for want of proof of this you content your self only to say it and therefore I also might be contented only to deny it yet I will not but give a reason for my denial And my reason is because our obligation expresly to know any Divine Truth must arise from Gods manifest revealing of it and his revealing unto us that he has revealed it and that his will is we should believe it Now in the points controverted among Protestants he hath not so dealt with us therefore he hath not laid any such obligation upon us The major of this Syllogism is evident and therefore I will not stand to prove it The minor also will be evident to him that considers that in all the Controversies of Protestants there is a seeming conflict of Scripture with Scripture Reason with Reason Authority with Authority which how it can consist with the manifest revealing of the truth of either Side I cannot well understand Besides though we grant that Scripture Reason and Authority were all on one side and the apparences of the other side all answerable yet if we consider the strange power that education and prejudices instilled by it have over even excellent understandings we may well imagine that many truths which in themselves are revealed plainly enough are yet to such or such a man prepossest with contrary opinions not revealed plainly Neither doubt I but God who knows whereof we are made and what passions we are subject unto will compassionate such infirmities and not enter into judgment with us for those things which all things considered were unavoidable 20. Obj. But till Fundamentals say you be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God it is not against Faith to reject them or rather it is not possible prudently to believe them And points unfundamental being thus sufficiently proposed as divine Truths may not be denied Therefore you conclude there is no difference between them Answ A Circumstantial point may by accident become Fundamental because it may be so proposed that the denial of it will draw after it the denial of this Fundamental truth that all which God says is true Notwithstanding in themselves there is a main difference between them Points Fundamental being those only which are revealed by God and commanded to be Preach'd to all and believed by all Points circumstantial being such as though God hath revealed them yet the Pastors of the Church are not bound under pain of Damnation particularly to teach them unto all men every where and the People may be securely ig-norant of them 21. Obj. You say Not Erring in points Fundamental is not sufficient for the preservation of the Church because any Error maintained by it against Gods Revelation is destructive I answer If you mean against Gods Revelation known by the Church to be so it is true but impossible that the Church should do so for ipso Facto in doing it it were a Church no longer But if you mean against some Revelation which the Church by error thinks to be no Revelation it is false The Church may ignorantly disbelieve such a Revelation and yet continue a Church which thus I prove That the Gospel was to be preached to all Nations was a Truth revealed before our Saviours Ascension in these words Go and teach all Nations Mat. 29.19 Yet through prejudice or inadvertence or some other cause the Church disbelieved it as it is apparent out of the 11. and 12. Chap. of the Acts until the conversion of Cornelius and yet was still a Church Therefore to disbelieve some divine Revelation not knowing it to be so is not destructive of salvation or of the being of the Church Again It is a plain Revelation of God that a 1 Cor. 11 2◠the Sacrament of the Eucharist should be administred in both kinds and b 1 Cor. 14 15 16.26 that the publick Hymns and Prayers of the Church should be in such a language as is most for edification yet these Revelations the Church of Rome not seeing by reason of the veil before their eyes their Churches supposed infallibility I hope the denial of them shall not be laid to their charge no otherwise than as building hay and stubble on the Foundations not overthrowing the Foundation it self 24. Ad § 5. This Paragraph if it be brought out of the Clouds will I believe have in it these Propositions 1. Things are distinguished by their different natures 2. The Nature of Faith is taken not from the matter believed for then they that believed different matters should have different Faiths but from the Motive to it 3. This Motive is Gods Revelation 4. This Revelation is alike for all objects 5. Protestants disagree in things equally revealed by God Therefore they forsake the formal motive of Faith and therefore have no faith nor unity therein Which is truly a very proper and convenient argument to close up a weak discourse wherein both the Propositions are false for matter confused and disordered for the form and the conclusion utterly in consequent First for the second Proposition who knows not that the Essence of all Habits and therefore of Faith among the rest is taken from their Act and their Object If the Habit be general
believing them for every obligation ceases when it becomes impossible Who can doubt but the Primitive Christians to whom the Epistles of the Apostles were written either of themselves understood or were instructed by the Apostles touching the sense of the obscure places of them These Traditive interpretations had they been written and dispersed as the Scriptures were had without question been preserved as the Scriptures are But to shew how excellent a Keeper of the Tradition the Church of Rome hath been or even the Catholick Church for want of writing they are all lost nay were all lost within a few Ages after Christ So that if we consult the Ancient Interpreters we shall hardly find any two of them agree about the sense of any one of them Cardinal Perron in his discourse of Traditions having alledged this place for them Hold the Traditions c. tell us we must not answer that S. Paul speaks here only of such Traditions which though not in this Epist to the Thessalonians yet were afterwards witten and in other Books of Scripture because it is upon occasion of Tradition touching the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist which was never written that he lays this injunction upon them to hold the Traditions Well let us grant this Argument good and concluding and that the Church of the Thessalonians or the Catholick Church for what S. Paul writ to one Church he writ to all were to hold some unwritten Traditions and among the rest what was the cause of the hinderance of the coming of Antichrist But what if they did not perform their duty in this point but suffered this Tradition to be lost out of the memory of the Church Shall we not conclude that seeing God would not suffer any thing necessary to Salvation to be lost and he has suffered this Tradition to be lost therefore the knowledge or belief of it though it were a profitable thing yet it was not necessary I hope you will not challenge such authority over us as to oblige us to impossibilities to do that which you cannot do your selves It is therefore requisite that you make this command possible to be obeyed before you require obedience unto it Are you able then to instruct us so well as to be fit to say unto us Now ye know what withholdeth Or do you your selves know that ye may instruct us Can ye or dare you say this or this was this hindrance which S. Paul here meant and all men under pain of damnation are to believe it Or if you cannot as I am certain you cannot go then and Vaunt your Church for the only Watchful Faithful Infallible Keeper of the Apostles Traditions when here this very Tradition which here in particular was deposited with the Thessalonians and the Premitive Church you have utterly lost it so that there is no Footstep or print of it remaining which with Divine Faith we may rely upon Blessed therefore be the goodness of God who seeing that what was not written was in such danger to be lost took order that what was necessary should be written S. Chrysostoms counsel therefore of accounting the Churches Traditions worthy of belief we are willing to obey And if you can of any thing make it appear that it is Tradition we will seek no farther But this we say withal that we are persuaded we cannot make this appear in any thing but only the Canon of Scripture and that there is nothing now extant and to be known by us which can put in so good Plea to be the unwritten Word of God as the unquestioned Books of Canonical Scripture to be the written Word of God 47. You conclude this Paragraph with a sentence of S. Austin's who says The Church doth not approve nor dissemble nor do these things which are against Faith or good Life and from hence you conclude that it never hath done so nor never can do so But though the argument hold in Logick à non posse ad non esse yet I never heard that it would hold back again à non esse ad non posse The Church cannot do this therefore it does it not follows with good consequence but the Church does not this therefore it shall never do it nor can never do it this I believe will hardly follow In the Epistle next before to the same Januarius writing of the same matter he hath these words It remains that the thing you inquire of must be of that third kind of things which are different in divers places Let every one therefore do that which he finds done in the Church to which he comes for none of them is against Faith or good manners And why do you not infer from hence that no particular Church can bring up any Custom that is against Faith or good manners Certainly this consequence has as good reason for it as the former If a man say of the Church of England what S. Austin of the Church that she neither approves nor dissembles nor does any thing against Faith or good manners would you collect presently that this man did either make or think the Church of England infallible Furthermore it is observable out of this and the former Epistle that this Church which did not as S. Austin according to you thought approve or dissemble or do any thing against Faith or good Life did yet tolerate and dissemble vain superstitions and humane presumptions and suffer all places to be full of them and to be exacted as nay more severely than the commandments of God himself This S. Austin himself professeth in this very Epistle This saith he I do infinitely grieve at that many most wholesom precepts of the Divine Scripture are little regarded and in the mean time all is so full of so many presumptions that he is more grievously found fault with who during his octaves toucheth the Earth with his naked Foot than he that shall bury his Soul in Drunkenness Of these he says that they were neither contained in Scripture decreed by Councils nor corroborated by the Custom of the Universal Church And though not against Faith yet unprofitable burdens of Christian Liberty which made the condition of the Jews more tolerable than that of Christians And therefore he professes of them Approbare non possum I cannot approve them And ubi facultas tribuitur resecanda existimo I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power Yet so deeply were they rooted and spread so far through the indiscreet devotion of the People always more prone to superstion than true Piety and through the connivence of the Governors who should have strangled them at their Birth that himself though he grieved at them and could not allow them yet for fear of offence he durst not speak against them multa hujusmodi propter nonnullarum vel sanctarum vel turbulentarum personarum scandala devitanda liberius improbare non audeo Many of these things for fear of
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 Catholick visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God it is like a covey of one Patridg or a flock of one sheep or a Fleet composed of one Ship or an Army of one man The Author of Charity Mistaken demands a particular Cataloge of Fundamental points And We say you again and again demand such a Catalogue And surely if this one Proposition which here you think to stop our mouths with be a Catalogue yet at least such a Catalogue it is not and therefore as yet you have not performed what you require For if to set down such a Proposition wherein are comprized all points taught by us to be necessary to Salvation will serve you instead of a Catalogue you shall have Catalogues enough As we are obliged to believe all under pain of damnation which God commands us to believe There 's one Catalogue We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe all whereof we may be sufficiently assured that Christ taught it his Apostles his Apostles the Church There 's another We are obliged under pain of damnation to believe Gods Word and all contained in it to be true There 's a third If these generalities will not satisfie you but you will be importuning us to tell you in particular what they are which Christ taught his Apostles and his Apostles the Church what points are contained in Gods Word Then I beseech you do us reason and give us a particular and exact Inventory of all your Church Proposals without leaving out or adding any such a one which all the Doctors of your Church will subscribe to and if you receive not then a Catalogue of Fundamentals I for my part will give you leave to proclaim us Banckrupts 54. Besides this deceitful generality of your Catalogue as you call it another main fault we find with it that it is extreamly ambiguous and therefore to draw you out of the Clouds give me leave to propose some Questions to you concerning it I would know therefore whether by believing you mean explicitely or implicitely If you mean implicitely I would know whether your Churches infallibility be under pain of damnation to be believed explicitely or no Whether any one point or points besides this be under the same penalty to be believed explicitely or no And if any what they be I would know what you esteem the Proposals of the Catholick Visible Church In particular whether the Decree of a Pope ex Cathedra that is with an intent to oblige all Christians by it be a sufficient and an obliging proposal Whether men without danger of damnation may examine such a Decree and if they think they have just cause refuse to obey it Whether the Decree of a Council without the Popes confirmation be such an obliging Proposal or no Whether it be so in case there be no Pope or in case it be doubtful who is Pope Whether the Decree of a general Council confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal and whether he be an Heretick that thinks otherwise Whether the Decree of a particular Council confirmed by the Pope be such a Proposal Whether the General uncondemned practice of the Church for some Ages be such a sufficient Proposition Whether the consent of the most eminent Fathers of any Age agreeing in the affirmation of any Doctrine not contradicted by any of their Contemporaries be a sufficient Proposition Whether the Fathers testifying such or such a Doctrine or Practice to be Tradition or to be the Doctrine or Practice of the Church be a sufficient assurance that it is so Whether we be bound under pain of damnation to believe every Text of the Vulgar Bible now Authorized by the Roman Church to be the true Translation of the Originals of the Prophets and Evangelists and Apostles without any the least alteration Whether they that lived when the Bible of Sixtus was set forth were bound under pain of damnation to believe the same of that And if not of that of what Bible they were bound to believe it Whether the Catholick Visible Church be alwaies that Society of Christians which adheres to the Bishop of Rome Whether every Christian that hath ability and opportunity be not bound to endeavour to know Explicitely the Proposals of the Church Whether Implicite Faith in the Churches Veracity will not save him that Actually and Explicitely disbelieves some Doctrine of the Church not knowing it to be so and Actually believes some damnable Heresie as that God has the shape of a man Whether an ignorant man be bound to believe any point to be decreed by the Church when his Priest or Ghostly Father assures him it is so Whether his Ghostly Father may not Err in telling him so and whether any man can be obliged under pain of damnation to believe an Error Whether he be bound to believe such a thing defined when a number of Priests perhaps Ten or Twenty tell him it is so And what assurance he can have that they neither Err nor deceive him in this matter Why Implicite Faith in Christ or the Scriptures should not suffice for a mans Salvation as well as implicite Faith in the Church Whether when you say Whatsoever the Church proposeth you mean all that ever she proposed or that only which she now proposeth and whether she now proposeth all that ever she did propose Whether all the Books of Canonical Scripture were sufficiently declared to the Church to be so and proposed as such by the Apostles And if not from whom the Church had this declaration afterwards If so whether all men ever since the Apostles time were bound under pain of damnation to believe the Epistle of S. James and the Epistle to the Hebrews to be Canonical at least not to disbelieve it and believe the
the Evidence of the Revelation was all in all But here we must err with you in small things for fear of loosing your direction in greater and for fear of departing too far from you not go from you at all even where we see plainly that you have departed from the Truth 57. Beyond all this I say that this which you say in wisdom we are to do is not only unlawful but if we will proceed according to reason impossible I mean to adhere to you in all things having no other ground for it but because you are as we will now suppose Infallible in some things that is in Fundamentals For whether by skill in Architecture a large structure may be supported by a narrow foundation I know not but sure I am in reason no conclusion can be larger than the Principles on which it is founded And therefore if I consider what I do and be perswaded that your infallibility is but limited and particular and partial my adherence upon this ground cannot possibly be Absolute and Universal and Total I am confident that should I meet with such a man amongst you as I am well assur'd there be many that would grant your Church Infallible only in Fundamentals which what they are he knows not and therefore upon this only reason adheres to you in all things I say that I am confident that it may be demonstrated that such a man adheres to you with a fiducial and certain assent in nothing To make this clear because at the first hearing it may seem strange give me leave good Sir to suppose you the man and to propose to you a few questions and to give for you such answers to them as upon this ground you must of necessity give were you present with me First supposing you hold your Church Infallible in Fundamentals obnoxious to Error in other things and that you know not what points are Fundamental I demand C. Why do you believe the Doctrin of Transubstantiation K. because the Church hath taught it which is Infallible C. What Infallible in all things or only in Fundamentals K. in Fundamentals only C. Then in other points she may err K. she may C. and do you know what Points are Fundamental what not K. No and therefore I believe her in all things least I should disbelieve her in fundamentals C. How know you then whether this be a fundamental point or no K. I know not C. It may be then for ought you know an unfundamental point K. yes it may be so C. And in these you said the Church may err K. yes I did so C. Then possibly it may err in this K. It may do so C. Then what certainty have you that it does not err in it K. None at all but upon this supposition that this is a Fundamental C. And this supposition you are uncertain of K. Yes I told you so before C. And therefore you can have no certainty of that which depends upon this uncertainty saving only a suppositive certainty if it be a Fundamental truth which is in plain English to say you are certain it is true if it be both true and necessary Verily Sir if you have no better Faith than this you are no Catholick K. good words I pray I am so and God willing will be so C. You mean in outward profession and practice but in belief you are not no more than a Protestant is a Catholick For every Protestant yields such a kind of assent to all the proposals of the Church for surely they believe them true if they be Fundamental Truths And therefore you must either believe the Church Infallible in all her proposals be they foundations or be they superstructions or else you must believe all Fundamental which she proposes or else you are no Catholick K. But I have been taught that seeing I believed the Church Infallible in points necessary in wisdom I was to believe her in every thing C. That was a pretty plausible inducement to bring you hither but now you are here you must go farther and believe her Infallible in all things or else you were as good go back again which will be a great disparagement to you and draw upon you both the bitter and implacable hatred of our part and even with your own the imputation of rashness and levity You see I hope by this time that though a man did believe your Church Infallible in Fundamentals yet he has no reason to do you the courtesie of believing all her proposals nay if he be ignorant what these Fundamentals are he has no certain ground to believe her upon her Authority in any thing And whereas you say it can be no imprudence to err with the Church I say it may be very great imprudence if the question be Whether we should err with the present Church or hold true with God Almighty 60. Whereas you add That that visible Church which cannot err in Fundamental propounds all her definitions without distinction to be believed under Anathema's Ans Again you beg the question supposing untruly that there is any that Visible Church I mean any Visible Church of one Denomination which cannot err in points Fundamental Secondly proposing definitions to be believed under Anathema's is no good argument that the Propounders conceive themselves infallible but only that they conceive the Doctrine they condemn is evidently damnable A plain proof hereof is this that particular Councils nay particular men have been very liberal of their Anathema's which yet were never conceived infallible either by others or themselves If any man should now deny Christ to be the Saviour of the world or deny the Resurrection I should make no great scruple of Anathematizing his Doctrine and yet am very far from dreaming of Infallibility 62. The effect of the next Argument is this I cannot without grievous sin disobey the Church unless I know she commands those things which are not in her power to command and how far this power extends none can better inform me than the Church Therefore I am to obey so far as the Church requires my obedience I Answer First That neither hath the Catholick Church but only a corrupt part of it declared her self nor required our obedience in the points contested among us This therefore is falsely and vainly supposed here by you being one of the greatest questions amongst us Then Secondly That God can better inform us what are the limits of the Churches power than the Church her self that is than the Roman Clergy who being men subject to the same passions with other men why they should be thought the best Judges in their own cause I do not well understand But yet we oppose against them no human decisive Judges not any Sect or Person but only God and his Word And therefore it is in vain to say That in following her you shall be sooner excused than in following any Sect or Man applying Scriptures against her Doctrine In as much
they profess it literally always to be obeyed unless some impiety or some absurdity force us to the contrary and they are not yet arrived to that impudence to pretend that either there is impiety or absurdity in receiving the Communion in both kinds This therefore they if not others are plainly taught by our Saviour in this place But by S. Paul all without exception when he says Let a man examine himself and so let him Eat of this Bread and Drink of this Chalice This a Man that is to examine himself is every man that can do it as is confessed on all hands And therefore it is all one as if he had said let every man examine himself and so let him Eat of this Bread and Drink of this Cup. They which acknowledg Saint Pauls Epistes and Saint Johns Gospel to be the Word of God one would think should not deny but that they are taught these two Doctrines plain enough Yet we see they neither do nor will learn them I conclude therefore that the Spirit may very well teach the Church and yet the Church fall into and continue in Error by not regarding what she is taught by the Spirit 72. But all this I have spoken upon a supposition only and shewed unto you that though these promises had been made unto the present Church of every Age I might have said though they had been to the Church of Rome by name yet no certainty of her Universal Infallibility could be built upon them But the plain truth is that these Promises are vainly arrogated by you and were never made to you but to the Apostles only I pray deal ingenuously and tell me who were they of whom our Saviour says These things have I spoken unto you being present with you c. 14.25 But the comforter shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have told you v. 26 Who are they to whom he says I go away and come again unto you and I have told you before it come to pass v. 28.29 You have been with me from the beginning c. 15. v. 27 And again these things I have told you that when the time shall come you may remember that I told you of them and these things I said not to you at the beginning because I was with you c. 16.4 And because I said these things unto you sorrow hath filled your Hearts v. 6 Lastly who are they of whom he saith v. 12. I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now Do not all these circumstances appropriate this whole discourse of our Saviour to his Disciples that were then with him and consequently restrain the Promises of the Spirit of truth which was to lead them into all truth to their Persons only And seeing it is so is it not an impertinent arrogance and presumption for you to lay claim unto them in the behalf of your Church Had Christ been present with your Church Did the Comforter bring these things to the Remembrance of your Church which Christ had before taught and she had forgotten Was Christ then departing from your Church And did he tell of his departure before it came to pass Was your Church with him from the beginning Was your Church filled with sorrow upon the mentioning of Christs departure Or lastly did he or could he have said to your Church which then was not extant I have yet many things to say unto you but ye cannot bear them now as he speaks in the 13. vers immediately before the words by you quoted And then goes on Howbeit when the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all Truth Is it not the same You he speaks to in the 13. vers and that he speaks to in the 14 And is it not apparent to any one that has but half an Eye that in the 13. he speaks only to them that then were with him Besides in the very Text by you alledged there are things promised which your Church cannot with any modesty pretend to For there it is said the Spirit of Truth not only will guide you into all Truth but also will shew you things to come Now your Church for ought I could ever understand does not so much as pretend to the Spirit of Prophesie and knowledge of future events And therefore hath as little cause to pretend to the former promise of being led by the Spirit into all truth And this is the Reason why both You in this place and generally your writers of Controversies when they entreat of this Argument cite this Text perpetually by halfs there being in the latter part of it a clear and convincing Demonstration that you have nothing to do with the former Unless you will say which which is most ridiculous that when our Saviour said He will teach you c. and he will shew you c. He meant one You in the former clause and another You in the latter 73. Obj. But this is to confine Gods Spirit to the Apostles only or to the Disciples that then were present with him which is directly contrary to many places of Scripture Ans I confess that to confine the Spirit of God to those that were then present with Christ is against Scripture But I hope it is easie to conceive a difference between confining the Spirit of God to them and confining the Promises made in this place to them God may do many things which he does not Promise at all much more which he does not promise in such or such a place 74. Obj. But it is promised in the 14. Chap. that this Spirit shall abide with them for ever Now they in their persons were not to abide for ever and therefore the Spirit could not abide with them in their Persons for ever seeing the coexistence of two things supposes of necessity the existence of either Therefore the promise was not made to them only in their Persons but by them to the Church which was to abide for ever Ans Your Conclusion is not to them only but your Reason concludes either nothing at all or that this Promise of abiding with them for ever was not made to their Persons at all or if it were that it was not performed Or if you will not say as I hope you will not that it was not performed nor that it was not made to their Persons at all then must you grant that the Word for ever is here used in a sense restrained and accommodated to the subject here entreated of and that it signifies not Eternally without end of time but perpetually without interruption for the time of their lives So that the force and sense of the Words is that they should never want the Spirits assistance in the performance of their function And that the Spirit would not as Chirst was to do stay with them for a time and afterwards leave them but would abide with them if they kept their
savour wherewith shall it be Salted it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast forth and to be trodden under Foot So the Church may be by Duty the Pillar and Ground that is the Teacher of Truth of all truth not only necessary but profitable to Salvation and yet she may neglect and violate this Duty and be in fact the teacher of some Error 78. Fourthly and lastly if we deal most liberally with you and grant that the Apostle here speaks of the Catholick Church calls it the Pillar and ground of Truth and that not only because it should but because it always shall and will be so yet after all this you have done nothing your Bridge is too short to bring you to the Bank where you would be unless you can shew that by truth here is certainly meant not only all necessary to Salvation but all that is profitable absolutely and simply All. For that the true Church alwaies shall be the maintainer and teacher of all necessary truth you know we grant and must grant for it is of the essence of the Church to be so and any company of Men were no more a Church without it than any thing can be a Man and not be reasonable But as a Man may be still a Man though he want a Hand or an Eye which yet are profitable parts so the Church may be still a Church though it be defective in some profitable truth And as a Man may be a Man that has some Boyls and Botches on his Body so the Church may be the Church though it have many corruptions both in Doctrine and practice 79. And thus you see we are at liberty from the former places having shewed that the sense of them either must or may be such as will do your Cause no service But the last you suppose will be a Gordian knot and ties us fast enough The words are Eph. 4.11 12 13. He gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. to the consummation of Saints to the work of the Ministry c. Until we all meet into the Unity of Faith c. That we be not hereafter Children wavering and carried up and down with every wind of Doctrine Out of which words this is the only argument which you collect or I can collect for you There is no means to conserve unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrine unless it be a Church universally Infallible But it is impious to say there is no means to conserve unity of Faith against every wind of Doctrine Therefore there must be a Church universally Infallible Whereunto I answer that your major is so far from being confirmed that it is plainly confuted by the place alledged For that tells us of another means for this purpose to wit the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his Ascension and that their consummating the Saints doing the work of the Ministry and Edifying the body of Christ was the means to bring those which are there spoken of be they who they will to the unity of Faith and to perfection in Christ that they might not be wavering and carried about with every wind of false Doctrine Now the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors are not the present Church therefore the Church is not the only means for this end nor that which is here spoken of 80. Peradventure by he gave you conceive is to be understood he promised that he would give unto the worlds end But what reason have you for this conceit Can you shew that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath this signification in other places and that it must have it in this place Or will not this interpretation drive you presently to this blasphemous absurdity that God hath not performed his promise Unless you will say which for shame I think you will not that you have now and in all Ages since Christ have had Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists for as for Pastors and Doctors alone they will not serve the turn For if God promised to give all these then you must say he hath given all or else that he hath broke his promise Neither may you pretend that the Pastors and Doctors were the same with the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and therefore having Pastors and Doctors you have all For it is apparent that by these names are denoted several Oâ—ders of men clearly distinguished and diversified by the Original Text but much more plainly by your own Translations for so you read it some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other some Pastors and Doctors and yet more plainly in the parallel place 1 Cor. 12. to which we are referred by your Vulgar Translation God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers therefore this subterfuge is stopped against you Obj. But how can they which died in the first Age keep us in Unity and guard us from Error that live now perhaps in the last This seems to be all one as if a Man should say that Alexander or Julius Caesar should quiet a mutiny in the King of Spains Army Ans I hope you will grant that Hippocrates and Galen and Euclid and Aristotle and Salust and Caesar and Livie were dead many Ages since and yet that we are now preserved from Error by them in a great part of Physick of Geometry of Logick of the Roman story But what if these men had writ by divine Inspiration and writ compleat bodies of the Sciences they professed and writ them plainly and perspicuously You would then have granted I believe that their works had been sufficient to keep us from error and from dissention in these matters And why then should it be incongruous to say that the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists and Pastors and Doctors which Christ gave upon his Ascension by their writings which some of them writ but all approved are even now sufficient means to conserve us in Unity of Faith and guard us from Error Especially seeing these writings are by the confession of all parts true and divine and as we pretend and are ready to prove contain a plain and perfect Rule of Faith and as the * Perron Chiefest of you acknowledge contain immediatly all the Principal and Fundamental points of Christianity referring us to the Church and Tradition only for some minute particularities But tell me I pray the Bishops that composed the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the Pope that confirmed them are they means to conserve you in Unity and keep you from Error or are they not Peradventure you will say their Decrees are but not their Persons but you will not deny I hope that you owe your unity and freedom from Error to the Persons that made these Decrees neither will you deny that the writings which they have left behind them are sufficient for this purpose And why may not then the Apostles
the Assumption of the Mother of God c. Others again mince and palliate the matter with this pretence that your Church undertakes not to coyn new Articles of Faith but only to declare those that want sufficient declaration But if sufficient declaration be necessary to make any Doctrin an Article of Faith then this Doctrin which before wanted it was not before an Article of Faith and your Church by giving it the Essential form and last complement of an Article of Faith makes it though not a Truth yet certainly an Article of Faith But I would fain know whether Christ and his Apostles knew this Doctrin which you pretend hath the matter but wants the form of an Article of Faith that is sufficient declaration whether they knew it to be a necessary Article of the Faith or no! If they knew it not to be so then either they taught what they knew not which were very strange or else they taught it not and if not I would gladly be informed seeing you pretend to no new Revelations from whom you learnt it If they knew it then either they concealed or declared it To say they concealed any necessary part of the Gospel is to charge them with far greater Sacriledg than what was punished in Ananias and Saphira It is to charge these glorious Stewards and dispensers of the Mysteries of Christ with want of the great vertue requisite in a Steward which is Fidelity It is to charge them with presumption for denouncing Anathema's even to Angels in case they should teach any other doctrin than what they had received from them which sure could not merit an Anathema if they left any necessary part of the Gospel untaught It is in a word in plain terms to give them the lie seeing they profess plainly and frequently that they taught Christians the whole Doctrin of Christ If they did know and declare it then was it a full and formal Article of Faith and the contrary a full and formal Heresie without any need of further declaration and then their Successors either continued the declaration of it or discontinued If they did the latter how are they such faithful depositaries of Apostolick Doctrin as you pretend Or what assurance can you give us that they might not bring in new and false Articles as well as suffer the old and true ones to be lost If they did continue the declaration of it and deliver it to their Successors and they to theirs and so on perpetually then continued it still a full and formal Article of faith and the repugnant doctrin a full and formal Heresie without and before the definition or declaration of a Council So that Councils as they cannot make that a truth or falshood which before was not so so neither can they make or declare that to be an Article of Faith or an Heresie which before was not so The supposition therefore on which this argument stands being false and ruinous whatsoever is built upon it must together with it fall to the ground This explication therefore and restriction of this doctrin whereof you make your advantage was to my understanding unnecessary The Fathers of the Church in after times might have just cause to declare their judgment touching the sense of some general Articles of the Creed but to oblige others to receive their declarations under pain of damnation what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all Ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some Ages and then expired He that can shew either of these things let him for my part I cannot Yet I willingly confess the judgment of a Council though not infallible is yet so far directive and obliging that without apparent reason to the contrary it may be sin to reject it at least not to afford it an outward submission for publick peace sake 20. Ad § 7.8 9. I come now to shew that you also have requited D. Potter with a mutual courteous acknowledgment of his assertion That the Creed is a sufficient summary of all the necessary Articles of Faith which are meerly Credenda 21. First then § 8. You have these words That it cannot be denied that the Creed is most full and compleat to that purpose for which the holy Apostles inspired by God meant that it should serve and in that manner as they did intend it which was not to comprehend all particular points of Faith but such general heads as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the Faith of Christ to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learnt and remembred These words I say being fairly examined without putting them on the rack will amount to a full acknowledgment of D. Potters Assertion But before I put them to the question I must crave thus much right of you to grant me this most reasonable postulate that the doctrin of repentance from dead works which S. Paul saith was one of the two only things which he preacht and the doctrin of Charity without which the same S. Paul assures us that the knowledge of all mysteries and all faith is nothing were doctrins more necessary and requisite and therefore more fit to be preacht to Jews and Gentiles than these under what judge our Saviour suffered that he was buried and what time he rose again which you have taught us cap. 3. § 2. for their matter and nature in themselves not to be Fundamental 22. And upon this grant I will ask no leave to conclude that whereas you say the Apostles Creed was intended for a comprehension of such heads of faith as were most befitting and requisite for preaching the faith of Christ c. You are now for fear of too much debasing those high doctrines as Repentance and Charity to restrain your assertion as D. Potter does his and though you speak indefinitely to say you meant it only of those heads of faith which are meerly Credenda And then the meaning of it if it have any must be this That the Creed is full for the Apostles intent which was to comprehend all such general heads of faith which being points of simple belief were most fit and requisite to be preached to Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easily learned and remembred Neither I nor you I believe can make any other sence of your words than this And upon this ground thus I subsume But all the points of belief which were necessary under pain of damnation for the Apostles to preach and for those to whom the Gospel was preached particularly to know and believe were most fit and requisite nay more than so necessary to be preached to all both Jews and Gentiles and might be briefly and compendiously set down and easie learn'd and remembred therefore the Apostles intent by your confession was in this Creed to comprehend all such points And you say the
Creed without the former can be possibly guarded from falling into them and continuing obstinate in them Nay so far is this Creed from guarding them from these mischiefs that it is more likely to ensnare them into them by seeming and yet not being a full comprehension of all necessary points of Faith which is apt as experience shews to misguide men into this pernitious error That believing the Creed they believe all necessary points of faith whereas indeed they do not so Now upon these grounds I thus conclude That Creed which hath great commodities and no danger would certainly be better then that which hath great danger and wants many of these great commodities But the former short Creed proposed by me I believe the Roman Church to be Infallible if your doctrin be true is of the former condition and the latter that is the Apostles Creed is of the latter Therefore the former if your doctrin be true would without controversie be better than the latter 83. Whereas you say If the Apostles had exprest no Article but that of the Catholick Church she must have taught us the other Articles in particular by Creeds or other means This is very true but no way repugnant to the truth of this which follows that the Apostles if your doctrin be true had done better service to the Church though they had never made this Creed of theirs which now we have if instead thereof they had commanded in plain terms that for mens perpetual direction in the faith this short Creed should be taught all men I believe the Roman Church shall be for ever Infallible Yet you must not so mistake me as if I meant that they had done better not to have taught the Church the substance of Christian Religion for then the Church not having learnt it of them could not have taught it us This therefore I do not say but supposing they had written these Scriptures as they have written wherein all the Articles of their Creed are plainly delivered and preached that Doctrin which they did preach and done all other things as they have done besides the composing their Symbol I say if your doctrin were true they had done a work infinitely more beneficial to the Church of Christ if they had never composed their Symbol which is but an imperfect comprehension of the necessary points of simple belief and no distinctive mark as a Symbole should be between those that are good Christians and those that are not so but instead thereof had delivered this one Proposition which would have been certainly effectual for all the aforesaid good intents and purposes The Roman Church shall be forever Infallible in all things which she proposes as matters of Faith 84. Whereas you say If we will believe we have all in the Creed when we have not all it is not the Apostles fault but our own I tell you plainly if it be a fault I know not whose it should be but theirs For sure it can be no fault in me to follow such Guides whether soever they lead me Now I say they have led me into this perswasion because they have given me great reason to believe it and none to the contrary The reason they have given me to believe it is because it is apparent and confest they did propose to themselves in composing it some good end or ends As that Christians might have a form by which for matter of Faith they might profess themselves Catholicks So Putean out of Thomas Aquinas That the faithful might know what the Christian people is to believe explicitly So Vincent Filiucius That being separated into divers parts of the world they might preach the same thing And that that might serve as a mark to distinguish true Christians from Infidels So Cardinal Richlieu Now for all these and for any other good intent I say it will be plainly uneffectual unless it contain at least all points of simple belief which are in ordinary course necessary to be explicitly known by all men So that if it be a fault in me to believe this it must be my fault to believe the Apostles wise and good men which I cannot do if I believe not this And therefore what Richardus de sancto Victore says of God himself I make no scruple at all to apply to the Apostles and to say Si error est quod credo à vobis deceptus sum If it be an Error which I believe it is you and my reverend esteem of you and your actions that hath led me into it For as for your suspicion That we are led into this perswasion out of a hope that we may the better maintain by it some opinions of our own It is plainly uncharitable I know no opinion I have which I would not as willingly forsake as keep if I could see sufficient reason to induce me to believe that it is the will of God I should forsake it Neither do I know any opinion I hold against the Church of Rome but I have more evident grounds than this whereupon to build it For let but these Truths be granted That the authority of the Scripture is independent on your Church and dependent only in respect of us upon universal Tradition That Scripture is the only Rule of Faith That all things necessary to salvation are plainly delivered in Scripture Let I say these most certain and divine Truths be laid for foundations and let our superstructions be consequent and coherent to them and I am confident Peace would be restored and Truth maintained against you though the Apostles Creed were not in the world CHAP. V. The ANSWER to the Fifth CHAPTER Shewing that the separation of Protestants from the Roman Church being upon just and necessary causes is not any way guilty of Schism 1. AD § 1.2 3 4 5 6 7. In the seven first Sections of this Chapter there be many things said and many things supposed by you which are untrue and deserve a censure As 2. First That Schism could not be a Division from the Church or that a Division from the Church could not happen unless there always had been and should be a visible Church Which Assertion is a manifest falsehood For although there never had been any Church Visible or Invisible before this age nor should be ever after yet this could not hinder but that a Schism might now be and be a Division from the present Visible Church As though in France there never had been until now a lawful Monarch nor after him ever should be yet this hinders not but that now there might be a Rebellion and that Rebellion might be an Insurrection against Sovereign Authority 3. That it is a point to be granted by all Christians that in all ages there hath been a visible Congregation of faithful people Which Proposition howsoever you understand it is not absolutely certain But if you mean by Faithful as it is plain you do free from all error in faith then
in particular admonished that for so small a cause propter tam modicam causam he should not have cut off so many Provinces from the Body of the Church and lastly seeing the Eccesiastical story of those times mentions no other notable example of any such Schismatical presumption but this of Victor certainly we have great inducement to imagin that Irenaeus in this place by you quoted had a special aim at the Bishop and Church of Rome Once this I am sure of that the place fits him and many of his successors as well as if it had been made purposely for them And this also that he which finds fault with them who separate upon small causes implies clearly that he conceived their might be such causes as were great and sufficient And that then a Reformation was to be made notwithstanding any danger of division that might insue upon it 12. Lastly S. Denis of Alexandria says indeed and very well that all things should be rather indured than we should consent to the division of the Church I would add Rather than consent to the continuation of the division if it might be remedied But then I am to tell you that he says not All things should rather be done but only All things should rather be indured or suffered wherein he speaks not of the evil of Sin but of Pain and Misery Not of tolerating either Error or Sin in others though that may be lawful much less of joyning with others for quietness sake which only were to your purpose in the profession of Error and practice of sin but of suffering any affliction nay even Martyrdom in our own persons rather than consent to the division of the Church Omnia incommoda so your own Christophorson enforced by the circumstances of the place translates Dionysius his words All miseries should rather be endured then we should consent to the Churches division 13. Ad § 9. In this Paragraph you tell us first that the Doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible Church maintained by many chief Protestants implies in it vast absurdity or rather sacrilegious Blasphemy Answ But neither do the Protestants alledged by you maintain the deficiency of the Visible Church but only of the Churches Visibility or of the Church as it is visible neither do they hold that the Visible Church hath failed totally from its essence but only from its purity and that it fell into many corruptions but yet not to nothing You say secondly that the Reason which cast them upon this wicked Doctrine was a desperate voluntary necessity because they were resolved not to acknowledge the Roman to be the true Church and were convinced by all manner of evidence that for diverse Ages before Luther there was no other But this is not to dispute but to Divine and take upon you the property of God which is to know the Hearts of Men. For why I pray might not the Reason hereof rather be because they were convinced by all manner of evidence as Scripture Reason Antiquity that all the Visible Churches in the World but above all the Roman had degenerated from the purity of the Gospel of Christ and thereupon did conclude there was no Visible Church meaning by no Church none free from corruption and conformable in all things to the Doctrine of Christ 14. Ad § 10. Neither is there any repugnance but in words only between these as you are pleased to stile them exterminating Spirits and those other whom out of courtesie you intitle in your 10. § more moderate Protestants For these affirming the Perpetual Visibility of the Church yet neither deny nor doubt of her being subject to manifold and grievous corruptions and those of such a nature as were they not mitigated by invincible or at least a very probable ignorance none subject to them could be saved And they on the other side denying the Churches Visibility yet plainly affirm that they conceive very good hope of the Salvation of many of their ignorant and honest Fore-fathers Thus declaring plainly though in words they denied the Visibility of the true Church yet their meaning was not to deny the perpetuity but the perpetual purity and incorruption of the Visible Church 17. Ad § 11. You ask To what Congregation shall a man have recourse for the affairs of his Soul if upon Earth there be no visible Church of Christ Answ If some one Christian lived alone among Pagans in some Country remote from Christendom shall we conceive it impossible for this man to be saved because he cannot have recourse to any Congregation for the affairs of his Soul Will it not be sufficient for such a ones Salvation to know the Doctrine of Christ and live according to it 18. Obj. To imagine a company of Men believing one thing in their Heart and with their Mouth professing the contrary as they must be supposed to do for if they had professed what they believed they would have become visible is to dream of a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants but not to conceive aright of the Church of Christ Answ What is this to the Visibility of the Church May not the Church be Invisible and yet these that are of it profess their Faith No say you Their profession will make them visible Very true visible in the places where and in the times when they live and to those persons unto whom they have necessary occasion to make their profession But not visible to all or any great or considerable part of the World while they live much less conspicuous to all Ages after them Now it is a Church thus illustriously and conspicuously visible that you require by whose splendour all men may be directed and drawn to repair to her for the affairs of their Souls Neither is it the Visibility of the Church absolutely but this degree of it which the most rigid Protestants deny which is plain enough out of the places of Napper cited by you in your 9. Part. of this chapt Where his words are God hath withdrawn his visible Church from open Assemblies to the Hearts of particular godly men And this Church which had not open Assemblies he calls The latent and Invisible Church Now I hope Papists in England will be very apt to grant men may be so far Latent and Invisible as not to profess their Faith in open Assemblies nor to proclaim it to all the World and yet not deny nor dissemble it nor deserve to be esteemed a damned crew of dissembling Sycophants Obj. But Preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments cannot but make a Church Visible and these are inseparable Notes of the Church I answer they are so far inseparable that wheresoever they are there a Church is But not so but that in some cases there may be a Church where these Notes are not Again these Notes will make the Church visible But to whom certainly not to all men nor to most men But to them only to whom
Corn. Look again I pray and you shall see that the field he speaks of is not the Church but the World and therefore neither doe You obey our Saviours command Let both grow up till the Harvest who teach it to be lawful to root these Tears such are Hereticks out of the World neither do Protestants disobey it if they eject manifest Heresies and notorious sinners out of the Church 58. Ad § 19. In the 19. you are so courteous as to suppose corruptions in your Doctrine and yet undertake to prove that neither could they afford us any sufficient cause or colourable necessity to depart from them Your reason is because damnable Errors there were none in your Church by D. Potters confession neither can it be damnable in respect of Error to remain in any Churches Communion whose Errors are not damnable For if the Error be not damnable the belief thereof cannot Answ D. Potter confesseth no such matter but only that he hopes that your Errors though in themselves sufficiently damnable yet by accident did not damn all that held them such he means and says as were excusably ignorant of Truth and amongst the number of their unknown sins repented daily of their unknown Errors The truth is he thinks as ill of your Errors and their desert as you do of ours only he is not so peremptory and presumptuous in judging your persons as you are in judging ours but leaves them to stand or fall to their own Master who is infinitely merciful and therefore will not damn them for meer Errors who desire to find the truth and cannot and withal infinitely just and therefore is it to be feared will not pardon them who might easily have come to the knowledge of the truth and either through Pride or obstinacy or neligence would not 59. To your minor also I answer almost in your own Words § 42. of this Chap. I thank you for your courteous supposal that your Church may Err and in recompence thereof will do you a Charity by putting you in mind into what Labyrinths you cast your self by supposing that the Church may Err in some of her Proposals and yet denying it lawful for any man though he know this which you suppose to oppose her judgment or leave her communion Will you have such a man dissemble against his Conscience or externally deny that which he knows true No that you will not for them that do so you your self have pronounced A damned Crew of dissembling Sycophants Or would you have him continue in your Communion and yet profess your Church to Err This you your selves have made to him impossible Or would you have him believe those things true which together with him you have supposed to be Errors This in such a one as is assured or persuaded of that which you here suppose that your Church doth Err and such only we say are obliged to forsake your Communion is as Schoolmen speak Implicatio in terminis a contradiction so plain that one word destroyeth another as if one should say a living dead man For it is to require that they which believe some part of your Doctrine false should withal believe it all true Seeing therefore for any man to believe your Church in Error and profess the contrary is damnable Hypocrisie to believe it and not believe it a manifest repugnancy and thirdly to profess it and to continue in your Communion as matters now stand a plain impossibility what remains but that whosoever is supposed to have just reason to disbelieve any Doctrine of your Church must of necessity forsake her Communion Unless you would remit so far from your present rigour as to allow them your Churches Communion who publickly profess that they do not believe every Article of her established Doctrine Indeed if you would do so you might with some coherence suppose your Church in Error and yet find fault with men for abandoning her Communion because they might continue in it and suppose her in Error But to suppose your Church in Error and to excommunicate all those that believe your own supposition and then to complain that they continue not in your Communion is the most ridiculous incongruity that can be imagined And therefore though your corruptions in Doctrine in themselves which yet is false did not yet your obliging us to profess your Doctrine uncorrupted against knowledge and Conscience may induce an obligation to depart from your Communion As if there were any Society of Christians that held there were no Antipodes notwithstanding this Error I might communicate with them But if I could not do so without professing my self of their belief in this matter then I suppose I should be excused from Schism if I should forsake their Communion rather than profess my self to believe that which I do not believe Neither is there any contradiction or shadow of contradiction that it may be necessary for my Salvation to depart from this Churches Communion And that this Church though Erring in this matter wants nothing necessary to Salvation 60. That there might be necessary cause to depart from the Church of Rome in some Doctrine and practices though she wanted nothing necessary to Salvation as Dr. Potter holds and you call a contradiction will appear by setting down his Words which are these To forsake the Errors of that Church and not to joyn with her in those practices which we account erroneous we are enforced by necessity For though in the issue they are not damnable to them which believe as they profess yet for us to profess and avow by Oath as the Church of Rome enjoyns what we believe not were without question damnable And they with their Errors by the grace of God might go to Heaven when we for our Hypocrisie and dissimulation he might have added and Perjury stould certainly be condemned to Hell 61. Ad § 20. Obj. But a Church not Erring in Fundamentals though Erring in other matters doth what our Saviour exacts at her hands doth as much as lies in her power to do Therefore the Communion of such a Church is not upon pretence of Error to be forsaken The consequence is manifest The Antecedent is proved because God by D. Potters confession hath promised his assistance no◠further Pag. 151.155 nor is it in her power to do more than God doth assist her to do Answ The promise of Divine Assistance is twofold Absolute or Conditional That there shall be by Divine providence preserved in the World to the Worlds end such a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to Salvation and nothing inevitably destructive of it This and no more the Doctor affirms that God hath promised absolutely Yet he neither doubts nor denys but that a farther assistance is conditionally promised us even such an assistance as shall lead us if we be not wanting to it and our selves into all not only necessary but very profitable truth and guard us from
or ill Opinion do gather otherwise than they ought For to this Church for a more powerful Principality it is necessary that all Churches resort that is all faithful People undique of what place soever In which Roman Church the Tradition from the Apostles hath always been conserved from those who are undique every where Answ Though at the first hearing the Glorious Attributes here given and that justly to the Church of Rome the confounding Hereticks with her Tradition and saying it is necessary for all Churches to resort to her may sound like Arguments for you yet he that is attentive I hope will easily discover that it might be good and rational in Irenaeus having to do with Hereticks who somewhat like those who would be the only Catholicks declining a tryal by Scripture as not containing the Truth of Christ perfectly and not fit to decide Controversies without recourse to Tradition I say he will easily perceive that it might be rational in Irenaeus to urge them with any Tradition of more credit than their own especially a Tradition consonant to Scripture and even contained in it and yet that it may be irrational in you to urge us who do not decline Scripture but appeal to it as a perfect rule of Faith with a Tradition which we pretend is many ways repugnant to Scripture and repugnant to a Tradition far more general than it self which gives testimony to Scripture and lastly repugnant to it self as giving attestation both to Scripture and to Doctrines plainly contrary to Scripture Secondly that the Authority of the Roman Church was then a far greater Argument of the Truth of her Tradition when it was United with all other Apostolick Churches than now when it is divided from them according to that of Tertullian Had the Churches Erred they would have varied but that which is the same in all cannot be Error but Tradition and therefore though Irenaeus his Argument may be very probable yet yours may be worth nothing Thirdly that fourteen hundred years may have made a great deal of alteration in the Roman Church as Rivers though near the Fountain they may retain their native and unmixt sincerity yet in long Progress cannot but take in much mixture that came not from the Fountain And therefore the Roman Tradition though then pure may now be corrupt and impure and so this Argument being one of those things which are the worse for wearing might in Irenaeus his time be strong and vigorous and after declining and decaying may long since have fallen to nothing Especially considering that Irenaeus plays the Historian only and not the Prophet and says only that the Apostolick Tradition had been always there as in other Apostolick Churches conserved or observed choose you whether but that it should be always so he says not neither had he any warrant He knew well enough that there was foretold a great falling away of the Churches of Christ to Antichrist that the Roman Church in particular was forewarned that she also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles might fall if they look not to their standing and therefore to secure her that she should stand for ever he had no reason nor Authority Fourthly that it appears manifestly out of this Book of Irenaeus quoted by you that the Doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his Judgment Apostolick Tradition as also it was esteemed for ought appears to the contrary by all the Doctors and Saints and Martyrs of or about his time for all that speak of it or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded are for it and Justin Martyr professeth that all good and Orthodox Christians of his time believed it and those that did not he reckons amongst Hereticks Now I demand was this Tradition one of those that was conserved and observed in the Church of Rome or was it not If not had Iraeneus known so much he must have retracted this commendation of that Church If it was then the Tradition of the present Church of Rome contradicts the Ancient and accounts it Heretical and then sure it can be no certain note of Heresie to depart from them who have departed from themselves and prove themselves subject unto error by holding contradictions Fifthly and lastly that out of the Story of the Church it is as manifest as the light at noon that though Iraeneus did esteem the Roman Tradition a great Argument of the Doctrin which he there delivers and defends against the Hereticks of his time viz. that there was one God yet he was very far from thinking that Church was and ever should be a safe keeper and an infallible witness of Tradition in general Inasmuch as in his own life his action proclaimed the contrary For when Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and damnation Iraeneus and all the other Western Bishops though agreeing with him in his observation yet sharply reprehended him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their disagreeing plainly shewing that they esteemed that not a necessary doctrin and a sufficient ground of excommunication which the Bishop of Rome and his adherents did so account of For otherwise how could they have reprehended him for excommunicating them had they conceived the cause of his excommunication just and sufficient And besides evidently declaring that they esteemed not separation from the Roman Church a certain mark of Heresie seeing they esteemed not them Hereticks though separated and cut off from the Roman Church 31. Obj. S. Austin saith in Psalm cont partem Donati It grieves us to see you so to lie cut off Number the Priests even from the Sea of Peter and consider in that order of Fathers who succeeded to whom she is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell do not overcome Where he seems to say that the Succession in the Sea of Peter was the Rock which our Saviour means when he said upon this Rock will I build my Church Ans I answer First We have no reason to be confident of the truth hereof because S. Austin himself was not but retracts it as uncertain and leaves to the Reader whether he will think that or another more probable Retr l. 1. c. 26. Secondly what he says of the Succession in the Roman Church in this place he says it elsewhere of all the Successions in all other Apostolick Churches Thirdly that as in this place he urgeth the Donatists with separation from the Roman Church as an argument of their Error So elsewhere he presseth them with their Separation from other Apostolick Churches nay more from these than from that because in Rome the Donatists had a Bishop though not a perpetual Succession of them but in other Apostolick Churches they wanted both These scattered men saith he of the Donatists Epist 165. read in the holy Books the Churches to which the Apostles wrote and have no Bishop in them But what is more perverse and
mad than to the Lectors reading these Epistles to say Peace with you and to separate from the peace of these Churches to which these Epistles were written So Optatus having done you as it might seem great service in upbraiding the Donatists as Schismaticks because they had not Communion with the Church of Rome overthrows and undoes it all again and as it were with a spunge wipes out all that he had said for you by adding after that they were Schismaticks because they bad not the fellowship of Communion with the seven Churches of Asia to which S. John writes whereof he pronounces confidently though I know not upon what ground Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid for is est alienum est Now I pray tell me do you esteem the Authority of these Fathers a sufficient assurance that separation from these other Apostolick Churches was a certain mark of Heresie or not If so then your Church hath been for many Ages heretical If not how is their authority a greater argument for the Roman than for the other Churches If you say they conceived separation from these Churches a note of Schism only when they were united to the Roman so also they might conceive of the Roman only when it was united to them If you say they urged this only as a probable and not as a certain Argument so also they might do that In a word whatsoever answer you can devise to shew that these Fathers made not separation from these other Churches a mark of Heresie apply that to your own Argument and it will be satisfied 33. You see S. Austins words make very little or indeed nothing for you But now his Action which according to Cardinal Perrons rule is much more to be regarded than his words as not being so obnoxious to misinterpretation a You do ill to translate it the Principality of the Sea Apostolick as if there were but one whereas S. Austin presently after speaks of Apostolical Churches in the plural number and makes the Bishops of them joynt Commissioners for the judging of Ecclesiastical causes I mean his famous opposition of three Bishops of Rome in Succession touching the great question of Appeals wherein he and the rest of the African Bishops proceeded so far in the first or second Milevitan Council as to b The words of the Decree which also Bellarmine l. 1. de Matrim c. 17. assures us to have been formed by S. Austin are these Si qui Africani ab Episcopis provocandum putaverint non nisi ad Africana provocent Concilia vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum Ad transmarina antem qui putaverit appellandum à nullo intra Africam in Communionem suscipiatur This Decree is by Gratian most impudently corrupted For whereas the Fathers of that Council intended it particularly against the Church of Rome he tells us they forbad Appeals to all excepting only the Church of Rome decree any African Excommunicate that should appeal to any man out of Africk and therein continued resolute unto death I say this famous Action of his makes clearly and evidently and infinitely against you For had Boniface and the rest of the African Bishops a great part whereof were Saints and Martyrs believed as an Article of Faith that Union and Conformity with the Doctrin of the Roman Church in all things which she held necessary was a certain note of a good Catholick and by Gods command necessary to Salvation how was it possible they should have opposed it in this Unless you will say they were all so foolish as to believe at once direct contradictions viz. that conformity to the Roman Church was necessary in all points and not necessary in this or else so horribly impious as believing this doctrin of the Roman Church true and her power to receive Appeals derived from divine Authority notwithstanding to oppose and condemn it and to Anathematize all those Africans of what condition soever that should appeal unto it I say of what condition soever For it is evident that they concluded in their determination Bishops as well as the inferior Clergy and Laity And Cardinal Perrons pretence of the contrary is a shameless falshood repugnant to the plain a The words are these Praefato debito salutationis officio impendio deprecamur ut deinceps ad aures vestras hinc venientes non faciliùs admittatis nec à nobis excommunicates ultra in Communionem velitis recipere quia hoc etiam Niceno Concilio definitum facile advertet venerabilitas tua Nam si de inferioribus Clericis vel Laicis videtur id praecavert quanto magis hoc de Episcopis voluit observari words of the Remonstrance of the African Bishops to Celestine Bishop of Rome 34. Obj. Tertullian saith Praescrip cap. 36. If thou be near Italy thou bast Rome whose Authority is near at hand to us a happy Church into which the Apostles have poured all Doctrin together with their blood Ans Your allegation of Tertullian is a manifest conviction of your want of sincerity For you produce with great ostentation what he says of the Church of Rome but you and your fellows always conceal and dissemble that immediately before these words he attributes as much for point of direction to any other Apostolick Church and that as he sends them to Rome who lived near Italy so those near Achaia he sends to Corinth those about Macedonia to Philippi and Thessalonica those of Asia to Ephesus His words are Go to now thou that wilt better imploy thy curiosity in the business of thy salvation run over the Apostolical Churches wherein the Chairs of the Apostles are yet sate upon in their places wherein their Authentick Epistles are recited sounding out the voyce and representing the face of every one Is Achaia near thee there thou hast Corinth If thou art not far from Macedonia thou hast Philippi thou hast Thessalonica If thou canst go into Asia there thou hast Ephesus If thou be adjacent to Italy thou hast Rome whose Authority is near at hand to us in Africk A happy Church into which the Apostles poured forth all their Doctrine together with their Blood c. Now I pray Sirtell me if you can for blushing why this place might not have been urged by a Corinthian or Philippian or Thessalonian or an Ephesian to shew that in the Judgment of Tertullian separation from any of their Churches is a certain mark of Heresie as justly and rationally as you alledge it to vindicate this priviledge to the Roman Church only Certainly if you will stand to Tertullians judgment you must either grant the authority of the Roman Church though at that time a good Topical Argument and perhaps a better than any the Hereticks had especially in conjunction with other Apostolick Churches yet I say you must grant it perforce but a Fallible Guide as well as that of Ephesus and Thessalonica and Philippi and Corinth or you must maintain the authority of
yet our own Brethren the Century writers acknowledge that in the times of Cyprian and Tertullian private Confession even of thoughts was used and that it was then commanded and thought necessary and then our Ordination you say is very doubtful and all that depends upon it Answer I also omit to answer 1. That your Brother Rhenanus acknowledges the contrary and assures us that the Confession then required and in use was publick and before the Church and that your auricular Confession was not then in the World for which his Mouth is stopped by your Index Expurgatorius 2. That your Brother Arcudius acknowledges that the Eucharist was in Cyprians time given to Infants and esteemed necessary or at least profitable for them and the giving it shews no less and now I would know whether you will acknowledg your Church bound to give it and to esteem so of it 3. That it might be then commanded and being commanded be thought necessary and yet be but a Church Constitution Neither will I deny if the present Church could and would so order it that the abuses of it might be prevented and conceiving it profitable should enjoyn the use of it but that being commanded it would be necessary 4. Concerning our Ordinations besides that I have proved it impossible that they should be so doubtful as yours according to your own principles I answer that experience shews them certainly sufficient to bring men to Faith and Repentance and consequently to Salvation and that if there were any secret defect of any thing necessary which we cannot help God will certainly supply it 19. It is remarkable against what you say § 7. That any small Error in Faith destroys all Faith that S. Austin whose authority is here stood upon thought otherwise He conceived the Donatists to hold some Error in Faith and yet not to have no Faith His words of them to this purpose are most pregnant and evident you are with us saith he to the Donatist Ep. 48. in Baptism in the Creed in the other Sacraments And again Super gestis cum emerit Thou hast proved to me that thou hast Faith prove to me likewise that thou hast Charity Lib. 5. prope initium Parallel to which words are these of Optatus Amongst us and you is one Ecclesiastical conversation common lessons the same Faith the same Sacraments Where by the way we may observe that in the judgments of these Fathers even the Donatists though Hereticks and Schismaticks gave true Ordination the true Sacrament of Matrimony true Sacramental Absolution Confirmation the true Sacrament of the Eucharist true extream Unction or else choose you whether some of these were not then esteemed Sacraments But for Ordination whether he held it a Sacrament or no certainly he held that it remained with them entire for so he says in express terms in his Book against Parmenianus his Epistle Which Doctrine if you can reconcile with the present Doctrine of the Roman Church Eris mihi magnus Apollo 20. Ad § 8. Obj. You say there is un inevitable necessity for us either to grant Salvation to your Church or to entail certain damnation upon our own because ours can have no being till Luther unless yours be supposed to have been the true Church I answer this cause is no cause For first as Luther had no being before Luther and yet he was when he was though he was not before so there is no repugnance in the terms but that there might be a true Church after Luther though there were none for some Ages before as since Columbus his time there have been Christians in America though before there were none for many Ages For neither do you shew neither does it appear that the generation of Churches is Univocal that nothing but a Church can possibly beget a Church nor that the present being of a true Church depends necessarily upon the perpetuity of a Church in all Ages any more than the present being of Peripateticks or Stoicks depends upon a perpetual pedigree of them For though I at no hand deny the Churches perpetuity yet I see nothing in your Book to make me understand that the truth of the present depends upon it nor any thing that can hinder but that a false Church Gods providence over-watching and over-ruling it may preserve the means of confuting their own Heresies and reducing men to truth and so raising a true Church I mean the integrity and the Authority of the word of God with men Thus the Jews preserve means to make men Christians and Papists preserve means to make men Protestants and Protestants which you say are a false Church do as you pretend preserve means to make men Papists that is their own Bibles out of which you pretend to be able to prove that they are to be Papists Secondly you shew not nor does it appear that the perpetuity of the Church depends on the truth of yours For though you talk vainly as if you were the only men in the World before Luther yet the World knows that this is but talk and that there were other Christians besides you which might have perpetuated the Church though you had not been Lastly you shew not neither doth it appear that your being acknowledged in some sense a true Church doth necessarily import that we must grant Salvation to it unless by it you understand the ignorant members of it which is a very unusual Synechdoche 21. Whereas you say that Catholicks never granted that the Donatists had a true Church or might be saved I answ S. Austin himself granted that those among them who sought the Truth being ready when they found it to correct their Error were not Hereticks and therefore notwithstanding their Error might be saved And this is all the Charity that Protestants allow to Papists Therefore the Argument of the Donatists is as good as that of the Papists against Protestants For the Donatists argued thus speaking to the Catholicks Your selves confess our Baptism Sacraments and Faith good and available We deny yours to be so and say there is no Church no Salvation amongst you Therefore it is safest for all to joyn with us 22. S. Austins words are cont lit petil l. 2. c. 108. Petilianus dixit venite ad Ecclesiam populi aufugite Traditores Cont. lit Petil l. 2. c. 108. si perire non vultis Petilian saith come to the Church ye People and fly from the Traditours if ye will not be damned for that ye may know that they being guilty esteem well of our Faith behold I Baptize these whom they have infected but they receive those whom we have Baptized Where it is plain that Petilian by his words makes the Donatists the Church and excludes the Catholicks from salvation absolutely And whereas you say the Catholicks never yielded that among the Donatists there was a true Church and hope of Salvation I say it appears by what I have alledged out of S. Austin that they
good works they requiring Charity as a necessary qualification in him that will be saved what sense is there in saying they cannot make their calling certain by good works They know what salvation is as well as you and you have as much reason to desire it They believe it as heartily as you that there is no good work but shall have its proper reward and that there is no possibility of obtaining the eternal reward without good works and why then may not this Doctrin be a sufficient incitement and provocation unto good works 31. You say that they certainly believe that before any good works they are justified But this is a calumny There is no Protestant but requires to Justification Remission of sins and to Remission of sins they all require Repentance and Repentance I presume may not be denied the name of a good work being indeed if it be rightly understood and according to the sense of the word in Scripture an effectual conversion from all sin to all holiness But though it be taken for meer sorrow for sins past and a bare purpose of amendment yet even this is a good work and therefore Protestants requiring this to Remission of sins and Remission of sins to justification cannot with candor be pretended to believe that they are justified before any good work 32. Obj. You say They believe themselves justified by faith alone and that by that faith whereby they believe themselves justified Answ Some peradventure do so but withal they believe that that faith which is alone and unaccompanied with sincere and universal obedience is to be esteemed not faith but presumption and is at no hand sufficient to justificafication that though Charity be not imputed unto justification yet it is required as a necessary disposition in the person to be justified and that though in regard of the imperfection of it no man can be justified by it yet that on the other side no man can be justified without it So that upon the whole matter a man may truly and safely say that the Doctrin of these Protestants taken altogether is not a Doctrin of Liberty not a Doctrin that turns hope into presumption and carnal security though it may justly be feared that many licentious persons taking it by halves have made this wicked use of it For my part I do heartily wish that by publick Authority it were so ordered that no man should ever Preach or Print this Doctrin that Faith alone justifies unless he joyns this together with it that universal obedience is necessary to salvation And besides that those Chapters of S. Paul which intreat of justification by faith without the works of the Law were never read in the Church but when the thirteenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians concerning the absolute necessity of Charity should be to prevent misprision read together with them 33. Obj. Whereas you say that some Protestants do expresly affirm the former point to be the soul of the Church c. and that therefore they must want the Theological vertue of Hope and that none can have true hope while they hope to be saved in their Communion I Answer They have great reason to believe the Doctrin of Justification by faith only a point of great weight and importance if it be rightly understood that is they have reason to esteem it a principal and necessary duty of a Christian to place his hope of justification and salvation not in the perfection of his own righteousness which if it be imperfect will not justifie but only in the mercies of God through Christs satisfaction and yet notwithstanding this nay the rather for this may preserve themselves in the right temper of good Christians which is a happy mixture and sweet composition of confidence and fear If this Doctrin be otherwise expounded than I have here expounded I will not undertake the justification of it only I will say that which I may do truly that I never knew any Protestant such a soli-fidian but that he did believe these divine Truths That he must make his calling certain by good works That he must work out his salvation with fear and trembling and that while he does not so he can have no well-grounded hope of Salvation I say I never met with any who did not believe these divine Truths and that with a more firm and a more unshaken assent than he does that himself is predestinate and that he is justified by believing himself justified I never met with any such who if he saw there were a necessity to do either would not rather forgo his belief of these Doctrins than the former these which he sees disputed and contradicted and opposed with a great multitude of very potent Arguments then those which being the express words of Scripture whosoever should call into question could not with any modesty pretend to the title of Christian And therefore there is no reason but we may believe that their full assurance of the former Doctrins doth very well qualifie their perswasion of the latter and that the former as also the lives of many of them do sufficiently testifie are more effectual to temper their hope and to keep it at a stay of a filial and modest assurance of Gods favor built upon the conscience of his love and fear than the latter can be to swell and puff them up into vain confidence and ungrounded presumption This reason joyned with our experience of the honest and religious conversation of many men of this opinion is a sufficient ground for Charity to hope well of their hope and to assure our selves that it cannot be offensive but rather most acceptable to God if notwithstanding this diversity of opinion we embrace each ether with the strict embraces of love and Communion To you and your Church we leave it to separate Christians from the Church and to prescribe them from heaven upon trivial and trifling causes As for our selves we conceive a charitable judgment of our Brethren and their errors though untrue much more pleasing to God than a true judgment if it be uncharitable and therefore shall always chuse if we do err to err on the milder and more merciful part and rather to retain those in our Communion which deserve to be ejected than eject those that deserve to be retained 34. Lastly whereas you say that seeing Protestants differ about the point of Justification you must needs infer that they want unity in faith and consequently all faith and then that they cannot agree what points are fundamental I Answer to the first of these inferences that as well might you infer it upon Victor Bishop of Rome and Policrates upon Stephen Bishop of Rome and S. Cyprian inasmuch as it is undeniably evident that what one of those esteemed necessary to salvation the other esteemed not so But points of Doctrin as all other things are as they are and not as they are esteemed neither can a necessary point
chargeable for forsaking that guide which God has appointed me to follow But what if I forsook it because I thought I had reason to fear it was one of those blind guides which whosoever blindly follows is threatned by our Saviour that both he and his guide shall fall into the Ditch then I hope you will grant it was not pride but Conscience that moved me to do so for as it is wise humility to obey those whom God hath set over me so it is sinful credulity to follow every man or every Church that without warrant will take upon them to guide me shew me then some good and evident title which the Church of Rome has to this office produce but one reason for it which upon trial will not finally be resolved and vanish into uncertainties and if I yield not unto it say if you please I am as proud as Lucifer in the mean time give me leave to think it strange and not far from a Prodigee that this Doctrin of the Roman Churches being the guide of faith if it be true doctrin should either not be known to the four Evangelists or if it were known to them that being wise and good men they should either be so envious of the Churches happiness or so forgetful of the work they took in hand which was to write the Gospel of Christ as that not so much as one of them should mention so much as once this so necessary part of the Gospel without the belief whereof there is no salvation and with the belief whereof unless men be snatcht away by sudden death there is hardly any damnation It is evident they do all of them with one consent speak very plainly of many things of no importance in comparison hereof and is it credible or indeed possible that with one consent or rather conspiracy they should be so deeply silent concerning this unum necessarium You may believe it if you can for my part I cannot unless I see demonstration for it for if you say they send us to the Church and consequently to the Church of Rome this is to suppose that which can never be proved that the Church of Rome is the only Church and without this supposal upon Division of the Church I am as far to seek for a guide of my Faith as ever As for example In that great division of the Church when the whole world wondred saith Saint Hierom that it was become Arrian when Liberius Bishop of Rome as S. Athanasius and S. Hilary testifie subscribed their Heresie and joyned in Communion with them Or in the division between the Greek and the Roman Church about the procession of the Holy Ghost when either side was the Church to it self and each part Heretical and Schismatical to the other what direction could I then an ignorant man have found from that Text of Scripture Unless he hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican or Upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Again give me leave to wonder that neither S. Paul writing to the Romans should so much as intimate this their priviledge of Infallibility but rather on the contrary put them in fear in the eleventh Chapter that they as well as the Jews were in danger of falling away That Saint Peter the pretended Bishop of Rome writing two Catholick Epistles mentioning his departure should not once acquaint the Christians whom he writes to what guide they were to follow after he was taken from them That the writers of the New Testament should so frequently forewarn men of Hereticks false Christs false prophets and not once arm them against them with letting them know this onely sure means of avoiding their danger That so great a part of the New Testament should be imployed about Antichrist and so little or indeed none at all about the Vicar of Christ and the guide of the faithful That our Saviour should leave this onely means for the ending of Controversies and yet speak so obscurely and ambiguously of it that now our Judge is the greatest Controversie and the greatest hinderance of ending them That there should be better evidence in the Scripture to intitle the King to this Office who disclaims it than the Pope who pretends it That S. Peter should not ever exercise over the Apostles any one act of Jurisdiction nor they ever give him any one Title of Authority over them That if the Apostles did know S. Peter was made head over them when our Saviour said Thou art Peter c. they should still contend who should be the first and that our Saviour should never tell them S. Peter was the man That S. Paul should say he was in nothing inferiour to the very chief Apostles That the Catechumenists in the primitive Church should never be taught this foundation of their Faith that the Church of Rome was Guide of their Faith That the Fathers Tertullian S. Hierom and Optatus when they flew highest in commendation of the Roman Church should attribute no more to her than to all other Apostolical Churches That in the Controversie about Easter the Bishops and Churches of Asia should be so ill Catechised as not to know this Principle of Christian Religion The necessity of Conformity in Doctrin with the Church of Rome That they should never be pressed with any such necessity of conformity in all things but onely with the Tradition of the Western Churches in that point That Irenaeus and many other Bishops notwithstanding ad hanc Ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam should not yet think that a necessary Doctrin nor a sufficient ground of Excommunication which the Church of Rome though to be so That S. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk should be so ill instructed in their Faith as not to know this foundation of it That they likewise were never urged with any such necessity of Conformity with the Church of Rome nor ever charged with heresie or error for denying it That when Liberius joyned in Communion with the Arrians and subscribed their heresie the Arrians then should not be the Church and the Guide of Faith That never any Hereticks for three Ages after Christ were pressed with this Argument of the Infallibility of the present Church of Rome or charged with denyal of it as a distinct Heresie so that Aeneas Sylvius should have cause to say Ante tempora Concilii Niceni quisque sibi vivebat parvus respectus habebatur ad Ecclesiam Romanam That the Ecclesiastical Story of those times mentions no Acts of Authority of the Church of Rome over other Churches as if there should be a Monarchy and the Kings for some Ages together should exercise no act of Jurisdiction in it That to supply this defect the Decretal Epistles should be so impudently forged which in a manner speak nothing else but Reges Monarchas I mean the Popes making Laws for exercising authority
and did no more than Papists are bound to justifie what several Popes have said and done c. 5.112 M. They may be members of the Catholick Church that are not united in external Communion c. 5.9 The Protestant Doctrin of Merit explained c. 4.35 36. The Authors Motives to change his Religions with Answers to them Pref. 42.43 The Faith of Papists resolved at last into the Motives of Credibility c. 2.154 The Mischiefs that followed the Reformation not imputable to it c. 5.92 N. What make points necessary to be believed c. 4.4 11. No more is necessary to be believed by us than by the Apostles c. 4.67 70 71 72. Papists make many things necessary to salvation which God never made so c. 7.7 All necessary points of Faith are contained in the Creed c. 4.73 74. Why some points not so necessary were put into the Creed c. 4.75 76. Protestants may agree in necessary points though they may overvalue some things they hold c. 7.34 To impose a necessity of professing known errors and practising known corruptions is a just cause of separation c. 5.31 36 40 50 59 60 68 69. O. A blind obedience is not due to Ecclesiastical decisions though our practise must be determined by the sentence of superiours in doubtful cases c. 5.110 A probable opinion may be followed according to the Roman Doctors though it be not the safest way for avoiding sin c. 7 8. Optatus's saying impertinently urged against Protestants c. 5.99 100. Though we receive Ordination and Scripture from a false Church yet we may be a true Church c. 6.54 P. Whether Papists or Protestants most hazard their souls on probabilities c. 4.57 What we believe concerning the Perpetuity of the Visible Church Ans Pref. 18. Whether 1 Tim. 3.15 The Pillar and ground of Truth belong to Timothy or to the Church c. 3.76 If those words belong to the Church whether they may not signifie her duty and yet that she may err in neglecting it c. 3.77 A possibility of being deceived argues not an uncertainty in all we believe c. 3.26 50 c. 5.107 c. 6.47 By joyning in the Prayers of the Roman Church we must joyn in her unlawful practices c. 3.11 Preaching of the Word and administring the Sacrament how they are inseparable notes of the Church and how they make it visible c. 5.19 Private Spirit how we are to understand it c. 2.110 Private Spirit is not appealed to i. e. to dictates pretending to come from Gods spirit when Controversies are referred to Scripture c. 2.110 Whether one is left to his private spirit reason and discourse by denying the Churches infallibility and the harm of it Pref. 12 13. c. 2.110 A mans private judgment may be opposed to the publick when Reason and Scripture warrant him c. 5.109 A probable opinion according to the Roman Doctors may be followed though it is not the safest way for avoiding sin c. 7.8 It 's hard for Papists to resolve what is a sufficient proposal of the Church c. 3.54 Protestants are on the surer side for avoiding sin and Papists on the more dangerous side to commit sin shewed in instances c. 7.9 R. Every man by Reason must judge both of Scripture and the Church c. 2.111 112 113 118 120 122. Reason and judgment of discretion is not to be reproached for the private spirit c. 2.110 If men must not follow their Reason what they are to follow c. 2.114 115. Some kind of Reformation may be so necessary as to justifie separation from a corrupt Church though every pretence of reformation will not c. 5.53 Nothing is more against Religion than using violence to introduce it c. 5.96 The Religion of Protestants which is the belief of the Bible a wiser and safer way than that of the Roman Church shewed at large c. 6. from 56. to 72. Inclus All Protestants require Repentance to remission of sins and remission of sins to Justification c. 7.31 No Revelations known to be so may be rejected as not Fundamental c. 4.11 A Divine revelation may be ignorantly disbelieved by a Church and yet it may continue a Church c. 3.20 Things equally revealed may not be so to several persons c. 3.24 Papists cannot have Reverence for the Scripture whilst they advance so many things contrary to it c. 2.1 No argument of their reverence to it that they have preserved it intire c. 2.2 The Roman Church when Luther separated was not the visible Church though a visible Church and part of the Catholick c. 5.26 27. The present Roman Church has lost all Authority to recommend what we are to believe in Religion c. 2.101 The properties of a perfect Rule c. 2.5.6 7. Whether the Popish Rule of Fundamentals or ours is the safest c. 4.63 S. Right administration of Sacraments uncertain in the Roman Church c. 2. from 63. to 68. inclusive In what sense Salvation may be had in the Roman Church Ans Pref. 5 7. Salvation depends upon great uncertainties in the Roman Church c. 2. from 63. to 73. inclus Schisms whence they chiefly arise and what continues them c. 4.17 Schism may be a Division of the Church as well as from it c. 5.22 He may be no Schismatick that forsakes a Church for Errors not damnable Ans Pref. 2. No Schism to leave a corrupted Church when otherwise we must communicate in her corruptions c. 5.25 Not every separation from the external Communion of the Church but a causeless one is the sin of Schism c. 5.30 They may not be Schismaticks that continue the separation from Rome though Luther that began it had been a Schismatick c. 5.4 c. 6.14 The Scripture cannot be duly reverenced by Papists c. 2. n. 1. The Scripture how proved to be the word of God c. 4.53 The Divine Authority of the Scripture may be certain though it be not self-evidently certain that it is Gods word c. 6.51 Books of Scripture now held for Canonical which the Roman Church formerly rejected c. 2.90 91. Whether some Books of Scripture defined for Canonical were not afterward rejected c. 3.29 The Scripture in things necessary is intelligible to learned and unlearned c. 2.104 105 106. Some Books of Scripture questioned by the Fathers as well as by Protestants c. 2.34 The Scripture has great Authority from internal Arguments c. 2.47 The Truth of Scripture inspiration depends not on the authority of the Roman Church Pref. 14. c. 6.45 If the Scriptures contain all necessary truths Popery is confuted Pref. 30. to 38. inclusive The true meaning of Scripture not uncertain in necessary points c. 2.84 A determinate sense of obscure places of Scripture is not needful c. 2.127 150. The sense of plain places of Scripture may be known by the same means by which the Papists know the sence of those places that prove the Church c. 2.150 151. God may give means to the Church to know the true sense of Scripture yet it is not necessary it should have that sense c. 2.93 It
Philosophers and Heresies of Christians are none of his his is but one to wit the Catholick Church c. S. Epiphan in fine Panar 11. A man may not call the Conventicles of Hereticks I mean Marcionites Manichees and the rest Churches therefore the Tradition appoints you to say I believe one Holy Catholick Church c. S. Cyrill Catech. 18. And these Testimonies I think are sufficient to shew the judgment of the Ancient Church that this Title of the Church one is directly and properly exclusive to all companies besides one to wit that where there are diverse professions of Faith or diverse Communions there is but one of these which can be the Catholick Church Upon this ground I desire some company of Christians to be named professing a diverse Faith and holding a diverse Communion from the Roman which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers rising and if no other in this sense can be named than was she the Catholick Church at that time and therefore her judgment to be rested in and her Communion to be embraced upon peril of Schism and Heresie Mr. Chillingworths Answer Upon the same ground if you pleased you might desire a Protestant to name some Company of Christians professing a diverse Faith and holding a diverse Communion from the Greek Church which was the Catholick Church at the time of Luthers rising and seeing he could name no other in this sense concludes that the Greek Church was the Catholick Church at that time Upon the very same ground you might have concluded for the Church of the Abyssines or Armenians or any other society of Christians extant before Luthers time And seeing this is so thus I argue against your ground 1. That ground which concludes indifferently for both parts of a contradiction must needs be false and deceitful and conclude for neither part But this ground concludes indifferently both parts of a contradiction viz. That the Greek Church is the Catholick Church and not the Roman as well as That the Roman is the Catholick Church and not the Greek Therefore the ground is false and deceitful seem it never so plausible 2. I answer Secondly that you should have taken notice of my Answer which I then gave you which was that your major as you then framed your Argument but as now your minor is not always true if by one you understand one in external Communion seeing nothing hindred in my Judgment but that one Church excommunicated by another upon an insufficient cause might yet remain a true member of the Catholick Church and that Church which upon the overvaluing this cause doth excommunicate the other though in fault may yet remain a member of the Catholick Church which is evident from the difference about Easter-day between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Asia for which vain matter Victor Bishop of Rome excommunicated the Churches of Asia And yet I believe you will not say that either the Church excommunicating or the Church excommunicated ceased to be a true member of the Church Catholick The case is the same between the Greek and the Roman Church for though the difference between them be greater yet it is not so great as to be a sufficient ground of excommunication and therefore the excommunication was causeless and consequently Brutum fulmen and not ratified or confirmed by God in Heaven and therefore the Church of Greece at Luthers rising might be and was a true member of the Catholick Church As concerning the places of Fathers which you alledge I demand 1. If I can produce you an equal or greater number of Fathers or more ancient than these not contradicted by any that lived with them or before them for some doctrin condemned by the Roman Church whether you will subscribe it If not with what face or conscience can you make use of and build your whole Faith upon the Authority of Fathers in some things and reject the same authority in others 2. Secondly because you urge S. Cyprians Authority I desire you to tell me whether this Argument in his time would have concluded a necessity of resting in the Judgement of the Roman Church or no If not how should it come to pass that it should serve now and not then fit this time and not that as if it were like an Almanack that would not serve for all Meridians If it would why was it not urged by others upon S. Cyprian or represented by S. Cyprian to himself for his direction when he differed from the Roman Church and all other that herein conformed unto her touching the point of Re-baptizing Hereticks which the Roman Church held unlawful and damnable S. Cyprian not only lawful but necessary so well did he rest in the Judgment of that Church Quid verba audiam cùm facta videam says he in the Comedy And Cardinal Perron tells you in his Epistle to Casaubon that nothing is more unreasonable than to draw consequences from the words of Fathers against their lively and actual practice The same may be said in refutation of the places out of S. Austin who was so far from concluding from them or any other a necessity of resting in the Judgment of the Roman Church that he himself as your Authors testifie lived and died in opposition of it even in that main fundamental point upon which Mr. Lewgar hath built the necessity of his departure from the Church of England and embracing the Communion of the Roman Church that is The Supream Authority of that Church over other Churches and the power of receiving Appeals from them Mr. Lewgar I know cannot be ignorant of these things and therefore I wonder with what conscience he can produce their words against us whose Actions are for us If it be said that S. Cyprian and S. Austin were Schismaticks for doing so it seems then Schismaticks may not only be members of the Church against Mr. Lewgars main conclusion but Canoniz'd Saints of it or else S. Austin and S. Cyprian should be rased out of the Roman Kalendar If it be said that the point of Re-baptization was not defined in S. Cyprians time I say that in the Judgment of the Bishop and Church of Rome and their adherents it was For they urged it as an Original and Apostolick Tradition and consequently at least of as great force as any Church definition They excommunicated Firmilianus and condemned S. Cyprian as a false Christ and a false Apostle for holding the contrary and urged him Tyrannico terrore to conform his judgment to theirs as he himself clearly intimates If it be said they differed only from the particular Church of Rome and not from the Roman Church taking it for the universal society of Christians in Communion with that Church I Answer 1. They know no such sense of the word I am sure never used it in any such which whether it had been possible if the Church of Rome had been in their judgment to other Churches in
trouble you took the next Boat and went to the Church of Rome because that bespake you first You impute to me as I hear that the way I take is destructive only and that I build nothing which first is not a fault for Christian Religion is not now to be built but only I desire to have the rubbish and impertinent Lumber taken off which you have laid upon it which hides the glorious simplicity of it from them which otherwise would embrace it Remember I pray Averroes his saying Quandoquidem Christiani adorant quod comedunt sit anima mea cum Philosophis and consider the swarms of Atheists in Italy and then tell me whether your unreasonable and contradictious Doctrines your forged Miracles and counterfeit Legends have not in all probability produced this effect Secondly if it be a fault it is certainly your own for your discourse intended for the proof of a positive conclusion That we must be Papists proves in deed and in truth nothing but even in shew and appearance no more but this Negative that we must not be Protestants but what we must be if we must not be Protestants God knows you in this Discourse I am sure do not shew it Mr. Lewgars Reply § 1. The minor of Mr. Chillingworths Argument against my ground is very weak being framed upon a false supposition that a Protestant could name no other Church professing a diverse Faith c. from the Greek Church which was the Catholick Church for if he could not indeed name any other the title would remain to the Greek Church But he hath the Roman to name and so my ground cannot conclude either for the Greek or Abyssine or any other besides the Roman but for that it does except he can name some other § 2. His second answer is weak likewise for my Minor is always true at least they thought it to be so whose Authorities I produce in confirmation of it as will appear to any one that considers them well how their force lies in Thesi not in Hypothesi not that the Church was not then divided into more Societies than one but that she could never be § 3. As for his Instance to the contrary wherein he believes I will not say the Churches excommunicated by Victor ceased to be a true member of the Catholick If I say so I say no more than the Ancient Fathers said before me Iraeneus when he desired Victor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to cut off so many and great Churches and Ruffinus reprehendit eam quod non benè fecisset abscindere ab unitate corporis c. § 4. But howsoever the case of Excommunication may be the division of external Communion which I intended and the Fathers spake of in the alledged Authorities was that which was made by voluntary separation § 5. Whereby the Church before one Society is divided into several distinct Societies both claiming to be the Church of which Societies so divided but one can be the Catholick and this is proved by the Authorities alledged which Authorities must not be answered by disproving them as he does for that is to change his Adversary and confute the Fathers sayings instead of mine but by shewing their true sense or judgment to be otherwise than I alledged it § 6. To his demand upon the places alledged I Answer that I do not build my whole faith of this conclusion upon the Authority of those Fathers for I produce them not for the Authority of the thing but of the Exposition The thing it self is an Article of the Creed Unam Catholicam grounded in express Scripture Columba mea unica but because there is difference in understanding this Prophesie I produce these Authorities to shew the Judgment of the Ancient Church how they understood it and the proper answer to this is either to shew that these words were not there or at least not this meaning and so to shew their meaning out of other places more pregnant § 7. And I promise that whensoever an equal consent of Fathers can be shewed for any thing as I can shew for this I will believe it as firmly as I do this § 8. But this is not the Answerers part to propound doubts and difficulties but to satisfie the proof objected § 9. And if this course be any more taken I will save my self all farther labour in a business so likely to be endless § 10. His second Answer to the places is wholly impertinent for therein would he disprove them from watching a necessity of resting in the judgment of the Roman Church whereas I produced them only to shew that among several Societies of Christians only one can be the Catholick and against this his second Answer saith nothing § 11. In his third Answer he makes some shew of reply to the Authorities themselves but he commits a double Error One that he imposes upon me a wrong conclusion to be proved as will appear by comparing my conclusion in my Paper with the conclusion he would appoint me § 12. Another that he imposes upon the Authorities a wrong Interpretation no way grounded in the words themselves nor in the places whence they were taken nor in any other places of the same Fathers but meerly forged out of his own Brain For first the places do not only say that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no part of the Church but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one and they account Societies divided which are either of a diverse Faith or a diverse Communion Neither do they define Hereticks or Schismaticks in that manner as he does § 13. For an Heretick in their Language is he that opposes partinaciously the Common Faith of the Church and a Schismatick he that separates from the Catholick Communion never making any mention at all of the cause § 14. And if his definition of a Schismatick may stand then certainly there was no Schismatick ever in the World nor none are at this day for none did none does separate without some pretence of Error or unlawfulness in the Conditions of the Churches Communion § 15. And so I expect both a fuller and directer answer to my Argument without excursions or diversions into any other matter till the judgment of Antiquity be cleared in this point Mr. Chillingworths Answer Ad § 1. The Minor of my Argument you say is very weak being grounded upon a false Supposition That a Protestant could name no other Church professing a diverse Faith from the Greek which was the Catholick Church And your reason is because he might name the Roman But in earnest Mr. Lewgar do you think that a Protestant remaining a Protestant can esteem the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church or do you think to put tricks upon us with taking your proposition one while in sensu composito another while in sensu diviso For if your meaning was that a Protestant not remaining but ceasing to be a
Protestant might name the Roman for the Catholick so I say also to your discourse that a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant might name a Greek to be the Catholick Church and if there were any necessity to find out one Church of one denomination as the Greek the Roman the Abyssine which one must be the Catholick I see no reason but he might pitch upon the Greek Church as well as the Roman I am sure your discourse proves nothing to the contrary In short thus I say if a Grecian should go about to prove to a Protestant that his Church is the Catholick by saying as you do for the Roman some one was so before Luther and you can name no other therefore ours is so Whatsoever may be answered to him may be answered to you For as you say a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant may name to him the Roman so I say a Protestant ceasing to be a Protestant may name to you the Grecian If you say a Protestant remaining a Protestant can name no other but the Roman for the Catholick I may very ridiculously I confess but yet as truly say he can name no other but the Grecian If you say he cannot name the Greek Church neither remaining a Protestant I say likewise neither remaining a Protestant can he name the Roman for the Catholick So the Argument is equal in all respects on both sides and therefore either concludes for both parts which is impossible for then contradictions should be both true or else which is certain it concludes for neither And therefore I say your ground you build on That before Luther some Church of one denomination was the Catholick if it were true as it is most false would not prove your intent It would destroy perhaps our Church but it would not build yours It would prove peradventure that we must not be Protestants but it will be far from proving that we must be Papists For after we have left being Protestants I tell you again that you may not mistake there is yet no necessity of being Papists no more than if I go out of England there is a necessity of going to Rome And thus much to shew the poorness of your ground if it were true Now in the second place I say it is false neither have you proved any thing to the contrary Ad § 2. You say the Authorities you have produced shew to any that consider them well That the Church could never be divided into more Societies than one and you mean I hope one in external Communion or else you dally in ambiguities and then I say I have well considered the alledged authorities and they appear to me to say no such thing but only that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no true members of the Church Whereas I put the case of two such Societies which were divided in external Communion by reason of some overvalued difference between them and yet were neither of them Heretical or Schismatical To this I know you could not answer but only by saying That this supposition was impossible viz. That of two Societies divided in external Communion neither should be Heretical nor Schismatical and therefore I desired you to prove by one convincing Argument that this is impossible This you have not done nor I believe can do and therefore all your places fall short of your intended conclusion and if you would put them into Syllogistical form you should presently see you conclude from them Sophistically in that fallacy which is called A dicto secundum quid ad dictum Simpliciter Thus No two divided Societies whereof one is Heretical or Schismatical can be both members of the Catholick Church therefore simply no two divided Societies can be so the Antecedent I grant which is all that your places say as you shall see anon but the consequence is Sophistical and therefore that I deny It is no better nor worse than if you should argue thus No true divided Societies whereof one is Out-lawed and in Rebellion are both members of the same Commonwealth therefore simply no two divided Societies But against this you pretend That the alledged places say not only that the Societies of Hereticks and Schismaticks are no parts of the Church but that the Church cannot be divided into more Societies than one And they account Societies divided which are either of a diverse Faith or of a diverse Communion This is that which I would have proved but as yet I cannot see it done There be Eleven Quotations in all seven of them speak expresly and formally of division made by Hereticks and Schismaticks viz. 1.3 4. 7.9 10 11. Three other of them viz. 5 6.8 though they use not the word yet Mr. Lewgar knows they speak of the Donatists which were Schismaticks and that by the relative particles you and them are meant the Donatists And lastly the second Mr. Lewgar knows says nothing but this That an Hereticks cannot be accounted of that one Flock which is the Church But to make the most of them that can be The first saith the Unity of the Church cannot be separated at all nor divided This I grant but then I say every difference does not in the sight of God divide this Unity for then diversity of Opinions should do it and so the Jesuits and Dominicans should be no longer members of the same Church Or if every difference will not do it why must it of necessity be always done by difference in Communion upon an insufficient ground yet mistaken for sufficient for such only I speak of Sure I am this place says no such matter The next place saies the Flock is but one and all the rest that the Church is but one and that Hereticks and Schismaticks are not of it which certainly was not the thing to be proved but that of this one Flock of this one Church two Societies divided without just cause in Communion might not be true and lively members both in one Body Mystical in the sight of God though divided in Unity in the sight of men It is true indeed whosoever is shut out from the Church on Earth is likewise cut off from it before God in Heaven but you know it must be Clave non errante when the cause of abscission is true and sufficient Ad § 3. If you say so you say no more than the Fathers but what evasions and tergiversations are these Why do you put us off with ifs and ands I beseech you tell me or at least him that desires to reap some benefit by our Conference directly and Categorically Do you say so or do you say it is not so Were the Excommunicated Churches of Asia still members of the Catholick Church I mean in Gods account or were they not but all damned for that horrible Heresie of celebrating the Feast of Easter upon a diverse day from the Western Churches If you mean honestly and fairly answer directly to this Question and then you
of it Occasionem quaerit qui cupit discedere Ad § 10. I pray tell me Is not Therefore a note of an Illation or a conclusion And is not your last therefore this Therefore her judgment is to be rested in which though it be not your first conclusion yet yours it is and you may not declaim it and it is so near of kin to the former in your judgment I am sure that they must stand or fall together therefore he that speaks pertinently for the disproving of the one cannot speak impertinently towards the disproving the other and therefore you cannot so shift it off but of necessity you must answer the Argument there urged or confess it ingenuously to be unanswerable Or if you will not answer any thing where the contradiction of your first conclusion is not in terms inferred then take it thus If S. Cyprian and S. Austin did not think it necessary in matters of Faith to rest in the judgment of the Roman Church and the adherents of it Then either they thought not the Catholick Churches judgment necessary to be rested on or they thought not that the Catholick Church But the Antecedent is true and undeniably proved so by their Actions and the consequence Evident Therefore the consequent must be true in one or other part But you will not say the former is true it remains therefore the latter must be and that is That S. Austin and S. Cyprian did not think the Church of Rome and the adherents of it to be the Catholick Church Ad § 11. But I tell you now and have already told you that in our discourse before Mr. Skinner and Dr. Sheldon I answered your Major as then you framed your Argument as now your Minor thus If you understand by one company of Christians one in External Communion I deny your Major For I say that two several Societies of Christians which do not externally communicate together may be both parts of the same Catholick Church and what difference there is between this and the conclusion I told you you should have proved I do not well unstand Ad § 12. And is it possible you should say so when every one of the places carry this sense in their forehead and 7 of the 11 in terms express it That they intended only to exclude Hereticks and Schismaticks from being parts of the Church For if they did not against whom did they intend them Pagans lay no claim to the Church therefore not against them Catholicks they did not intend to exclude I know not who remains besides but Hereticks and Schismaticks Besides the frequent opposition in them between One Church on the one side and Hereticks and Schismaticks who sees not that in these places they intended to exclude only these pretenders out of the Churches Unity Lastly whereas you say that the places say That the Church cannot be divided and that they account those divided who are of a diverse Faith or a diverse Communion I tell you that I have read them over and over and unless my Eyes deceive they say not one word of a diverse Communion Ad § 13. Whereas a Heretick in your Language is he that opposeth pertinaciously the common Faith of the Church In mine He is such a one as holds an Error against Faith with Obstinacy Verily a monstrous difference between these definitions To oppose and hold against I hope are all one Faith and the common Faith of the Church sure are not very different pertinaciously and with Obstinacy methinks might pass for Synonimous and seeing the parts agree so well methinks the Total should not be at great hostility And for the definition of a Schismatick if you like not mine which yet I give you out of a Father I pray take your own and then shew me if you mean to do any thing that wheresoever there are two Societies of Christians differing in external Communion one of them most be of necessity either Heretical or Schismatical in your own sense of these words To the contrary I have said already and say it now again that you may not forget it the Roman and the Asian Churches in Victors time the Roman and the African in S. Stephens time differed in external Communion and yet neither of them was Heretical For they did not oppose pertinaciously the common Faith of the Church Neither of them was Schismatical for they did not separate never making mention of the cause at all but were separated by the Roman Church and that upon some cause though it were not sufficient Ad § 14. The Donatist did so as Facundus Hermianensis testifies but you are abused I believe with not distinguishing between these two They did pretend that the Church required of them some unlawful thing among the conditions of her Communion and they did pretend that it was unlawful for them to communicate with the Church This I confess they did pretend but it was in regard of some Persons in the Church with whom they thought it unlawful to communicate But the former they did not pretend I mean while they continued meer Schismaticks viz. That there was any Error in the Church or impiety in her publick service of God And this was my meaning in saying A Schismatick is he which separates from the Church without pretence of Error or unlawfulness in the conditions of her Communion Yet if I had left out the term unlawfulness the definition had been better and not obnoxious to this Cavillation and so I did in the second Paper which I sent you for your direction which if you had dealt candidly you should have taken notice of Ad § 15. I have replied as I think fully to every part and particle of your Argument Neither was the History of S. Cyprians and S. Austins opposition to the Church of Rome an excursion or diversion but a cleer demonstation of the contradictory of your conclusion viz. That the Roman Church c. and therefore her judgment not to be rested upon For an answer hereto I shall be very importunate with you and therefore if you desire to avoid trouble I pray come out of my debt as soon as may be If it be said that my Argument is not contradictory to your conclusion because it shews only that the Roman Church with her adherents was not in S. Cyprians or S. Austins time the Catholick Church but was at the time before Luther I say to conclude the one is to conclude the other For certainly if it were then at Luthers time so it was always so if it was not always it was not then for if it be of the essence or necessary to the Church as is pretended to be a Society of Christians joyned in Communion with the Church and Bishop of Rome then did it always agree to the Church and therefore in S. Cyprians and S. Austins time as well as at Luthers rising if it were not always particularly not in S. Cyprians time of the Essence or
necessary to the Church to be so then it was impossible the Church should acquire this Essence or this property afterwards and therefore impossible it should have it at the time of Luthers rising Necessarium est quod non aliquando inest aliquando non inest alicui inest alicui non inest sed quod semper omni Arist Post Analyt Again every Sophister knows that of Particulars nothing can be concluded and therefore he that will shew that the Church of Rome and the adherents of it was the Catholick Church at Luthers rising He must argue thus It was always so therefore then it was so Now this Antecedent is overthrown by any Instance to the contrary and so the first Antecedent being proved false the first consequent cannot but be false for what Reason can be imagined that the Church of Rome and the Adherents of it was not the whole Catholick Church at S. Cyprians time and was at Luthers rising If you grant as I think you cannot deny that a Church divided from the Communion of the Roman may be still in truth and in Gods account a part of the Catholick which is the thing we speak of then I hope Mr. Lewgars Argument from Unity of Communion is fallen to the ground and it will be no good Plea to say Some one Church not consisting of divers Communions was the Catholick Church at Luthers rising No one Church can be named to be the Catholick Church but the Roman Therefore the Roman Church was the Catholick at Luthers rising For Mr. Lewgar hath not nor cannot prove the Major of this syllogism certainly true but to the contrary I have proved that it cannot be certainly true by shewing divers instances wherein divers divided Communions have made up the Catholick Church and therefore not the dividing of the Communions but the cause and ground of it is to be regarded whether it be just and sufficient or unjust and insufficient Neither is the Bishop or Church of Rome with the Adherents of it an infallible Judge thereof for it is evident both he and it have erred herein divers times which I have evinced already by divers examples which I will not repeat but add to them one confessed by Mr. Lewgar himself in his discourse upon the Article of the Catholick Church pag. 84. S. Athanasius being excommunicated though by the a How by the whole Church when himself was part of it and communicated still with divers other parts of it whole Church yet might remain a member of Christs body not visible for that is impossible b What not to them who know and believe him to be unjustly Excommunicated that a person cut off from visible Communion though unjustly should be a visible member of the Church but by invisible Communion by reason of the invalidity of the sentence which being unjust is valid enough to visible excision but not farther II. A Discourse against the Infallibility of the Roman Church with an Answer to all those Texts of Scripture that are alledged to prove it THE Condition of Communion with the Church of Rome without the performance whereof no man can be received into it is this That he believe firmly and without doubting whatsoever that Church requires him to believe It is impossible that any man should certainly believe any thing unless that thing be either evident of it self as that twice two are four that every whole is greater than a part of it self or unless he have some certain reason at least some supposed certain reason and infallible guide for his belief thereof The Doctrins which the Church of Rome requireth to be believed are not evident of themselves for then every one would grant them at first hearing without any further proof He therefore that will believe them must have some certain and infallible ground whereupon to build his belief of them There is no other ground for a mans belief of them especially in many points but only an assurance of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome Now this point of that Churches Infallibility is not evident of it self for then no man could chuse but in his heart believe it without farther proof Secondly it were in vain to bring any proof of it as vain as to light a Candle to shew men the Sun Thirdly it were impossible to bring any proof of it seeing nothing can be more evident than that which of it self is evident and nothing can be brought in proof of any thing which is not more evident than that matter to be proved But now experience teacheth that millions there are which have heard talk of the Infallibility of the Roman Church and yet do not believe that the defenders of it do not think it either vain or impossible to go about to prove it and from hence it follows plainly that this point is not evident of it self Neither is there any other certain ground for any mans belief of it or if there be I desire it may be produced as who am ready and most willing to submit my judgment to it fully perswaded that none can be produced that will endure a severe and impartial examination If it be said The Roman Church is to be believed infallible because the Scripture says it is so 1. I demand how shall I be assured of the Texts that be alledged that they are indeed Scripture that is the Word of God And the answer to this must be either because the Church tells me so or some other if any other be given then all is not finally resolved into and built upon that Churches Authority and this answer then I hope a Protestant may have leave to make use of when he is put to that perillous Question How know you the Scripture to be the Scripture If the answer be because the Church tells me so my reply is ready that to believe that Church is infallible because the Scriptures say so and that the Scripture is the word of God because the same Church says so is nothing else but to believe the Church is infallible because the Church says so which is infallible 2. I could never yet from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse find it written so much as once in express terms or equivalently that the Church in subordination to the Sea of Rome shall be always infallible 3. If it be said that this is drawn from good consequence from Scripture truly interpreted I demand what certain ground have I to warrant me that this consequence is good and this interpretation true and if answer be made that reason will tell me so I reply 1. That this is to build all upon my own reason and private interpretation 2. I have great reason to fear that reason assures no man that the infallibility of the Church of Rome may be deduced from Scripture by good and firm consequence 4. If it be said that a Consent of Fathers do so interpret the Scripture I answer 1. That
God I say not that she was God but that they might lawfully offer to her And as I deny not but it follows she is a Woman therefore not a God so I think you will grant it follows as justly she is a Woman therefore not to be adored with offerings And therefore seeing the words lie indifferently between us and are not expresly and especially here applied for the refutation of that Heresie which you pretend they were guilty of I see no reason why Epiphanius might not as well intend them for that purpose which I conceive as for that which you conceive The last place alledged tells us that she was begotten and Born as other Men and Women are Which if the Collyridians had thought her God Eternal and absolutely without beginning should not have been barely said but proved as being in effect the very point in question and therefore seeing Epiphanius contents himself with saying so without proof it is evident he never thought they would make difficulty to grant it and consequently that they did not believe her to be God Eternal But then again if the Rule be good which part of your proofs depend upon That whatever Epiphanius denies in this discourse that the Collyridians held for upon that ground from Non Deum hanc efficeret non tamen Deus you conclude they believed her God If I say this Rule be good then you should be constant to it and now that he says Non tamen aliter genita est praeter hominum naturam she was not begotten in a different way from other men you should infer that they believed not that she was God but that she was otherwise Born and Begotten than the ordinary sort of Men. And so whereas he says before Non tamen corpus de coelo tulit her Body was not from Heaven you should infer that they believed her Body came from Heaven And again from those Sanctum erat Mariae corpus non tamen Deus you should collect that they thought not only her person but her Body to be God or if these be wild and weak deductions then you must acknowledge that I have done yours some favour in vouchsafing them a particular answer 5. Demand Whether in the Church of Roman it be not an approved and perpetually practised worship of the Blessed Virgin that Incense which was never anciently offered unto any either by Jews or Gentiles but to the true or to a supposed true God and Tapers and divers other oblations should be offered to her honour Answ A practice of the Church of Rome and approved too by those that practise it belongs not to her except it be a practice of the Church and approved by her What her practice is abroad I know not here at home I see no such practice nor do I know any approbation of it in any of her publick declarations But this I know that there is nothing in it unlawful or savouring of the Collyridian Superstition to offer Wax Tapers or any other thing at the Memories of the Blessed Virgin or any other Canonized Saint either as means to procure their intercession by these outward Signs of the Honour and Devotion which they bear to them as of Old we find by 8. Austin a Ad aquas Tibilotanas Episcopo offerente Projecto reliquias martyris gloriosissimi Stephani ad ejus memoriam veniebat magnae multitudinis concursus accursus Ibi caeca mulier ut ad episcopum portantem pignora Sacra duceretur oravit Flores ques ferebat dedit recepit oculis admovit protenus vidit August de Civit. Dei l. 22. c. 8. abscedens aliquid de Altari S. Stephani florum quod occurrit tulit Idem Ibid. c. they did use to adorn their Tombs with Flowers or as monuments of their thankfulness for some benefits received by their Intercession as Theodoret b Theodoretus de curandis affec Graec. l. 8. tells us of Eyes and Ears and Hands some of Gold and some of Silver hung up in the Chappels of the Saints that had been presented as oblations by those that had recovered health in those Members according to their Vows made to that purpose in time of Sickness Reply I do not deny but a practice may be tolerated in a Church and not approved As the Publick Stews are in Italy and Usury in England But it is one thing to Tolerate with condemnation another to Tolerate without condemnation nay with condemnation of those that should oppose or condemn it And such I doubt not upon examination you may find is this practice general in the Church of Rome offering Tapers to the Saints and for their honour I say not only to God at the Memories of the Saints as you would mince the matter which yet were a groundless superstition God having appointed no such Sacrifice to be offered to him under the Gospel but to the Saints themselves and to their honour prove this lawful for either of those purposes you mention either to procure their intercession or as Monuments of thankfulness for benefits obtained by it and then you shall do something Otherwise you will but trifle as now you have done For instead of telling us what may be done de jure you tell us what of Old has been done de facto As if ab antiquo and a principio were all one or as if the Church as we pretend being subject to corruption part of this corruption might not possibly have come in S. Austins or Theodorets time yet this I say not as if I would decline the Tryal of this cause by S. Austin or Theodoret but because I am sure you will not be Tryed by the Fathers no not the consent of Fathers in all things and therefore there is no reason nor equity in the World that you should serve your selves with their Authority in any thing But now what is it which was done in S. Austins time that may justifie the Practice of the Roman Church was there then any approved offering of Wax Tapers and Incense to the Queen of Heaven or any other Saint nil horum you neither do nor can produce any thing out of S. Austin to this purpose But what then is it Why forsooth they were used to adorn their Tombs Egregiam verò laudem spolia ampla of Old in S. Austins time they were used to adorn their Tombs with Flowers therefore we may offer Tapers to them Truly an excellent Enthymeme but I fear the concealed proposition which should make it a Syllogism hides its head for shame and dares not appear yet we will for once make bold to draw it forth into light that you may look upon it and tell us how you like it This therefore it is Whose soever Tombs we adorn to them and to their honour we may offer Wax Tapers Consider it I pray you and if you approve it then approve also of offering Tapers not only to Canonize Saints but to all Christians that